Harming children to make yourself feel good?

Options
1…1011131516…26

Replies

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    this thread should be the poster child for "sugar over reaction syndrome"
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Options
    I don't believe she is implying that the children will be harmed by the treats - which is where A LOT of people misunderstood her - she is simply saying to not give the child a treat just to make yourself fell better.
    Yes, the title is misleading and probably not the one she intended or the one she thought would cause such a slew of misunderstanding.

    Directly from the OP:
    If you're going around Mom and Dad to feed them high calorie, nutritionally void food - you're getting your own, warm, fuzzy, heart warming smile, "thank you," and, "I love you," AT THEIR EXPENSE - in straight, harsh terms: YOU ARE HARMING THEM TO MAKE YOURSELF FEEL GOOD. STOP.

    By going behind the parents back, you could potentially kill the child due to severe allergies (some are unknown at the time, like the earlier post of the 6 month old who was fed a peanut butter cup and suffered a severe allergy attack, causing the parents to spend the night in the ER). There can also be the adverse effect of the extreme sugar rush in some children, or terrible stomach aches. What about the religious or cultural restrictions that do not allow certain foods to be consumed? Are you aware of all the medication or dietary restrictions the child has, certain foods/ingredients may not be allowed due to their effect on the medication or the child's doctor has stated that the child cannot consume anything with that product in it.

    You may very well be harming the child just to make yourself feel better that you had given them something to eat.
    Backpedaling is a great calorie burner, isn't it?
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options
    We never allow our dogs people food, it is not good for them
    True. A piece of steak is TERRIBLE for a dog. I mean, why would you feed a dog meat? It's not as though that's what they're built to eat or anything.

    That doesn't make sense, dogs are carnivores!
    But it's people food. People food is bad for dogs. They must only eat dog food.

    Dogs are not carnivores. They are omnivores. Cats are carnivores.
  • AJinBirmingham
    AJinBirmingham Posts: 497
    Options
    This topic is strongly worded on purpose - partly for fun, and also because I'm tired of having to run interference with food pushers.

    My kids are allowed sweets and treats in moderation - but the next person to sneak one of my kids a cookie behind my back may be force fed a full length video of my five year old crying after he gets his backside handed to him at his next wrestling tournament.
  • Phildog47
    Phildog47 Posts: 255 Member
    Options
    Pics or it didn't happen! Eat up, kids :smile:
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options
    Have some marzipan babies
    marzipan-babies.jpg

    Wow! Who could actually bring themselves to eat those?!?!?

    They are too adorable though!

    There is something just sort of... Wrong? About the fact that those babies are edible? And they look so life like? I need my teddy bear! :sad:
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    I don't believe she is implying that the children will be harmed by the treats - which is where A LOT of people misunderstood her - she is simply saying to not give the child a treat just to make yourself fell better.
    Yes, the title is misleading and probably not the one she intended or the one she thought would cause such a slew of misunderstanding.

    Directly from the OP:
    If you're going around Mom and Dad to feed them high calorie, nutritionally void food - you're getting your own, warm, fuzzy, heart warming smile, "thank you," and, "I love you," AT THEIR EXPENSE - in straight, harsh terms: YOU ARE HARMING THEM TO MAKE YOURSELF FEEL GOOD. STOP.

    By going behind the parents back, you could potentially kill the child due to severe allergies (some are unknown at the time, like the earlier post of the 6 month old who was fed a peanut butter cup and suffered a severe allergy attack, causing the parents to spend the night in the ER). There can also be the adverse effect of the extreme sugar rush in some children, or terrible stomach aches. What about the religious or cultural restrictions that do not allow certain foods to be consumed? Are you aware of all the medication or dietary restrictions the child has, certain foods/ingredients may not be allowed due to their effect on the medication or the child's doctor has stated that the child cannot consume anything with that product in it.

    You may very well be harming the child just to make yourself feel better that you had given them something to eat.

    The OP targeted her post at family members. Family members would be aware of food allergies and religious/dietary restrictions. Most everyone in this thread agreed that if they didn't know the child well, then they would ask before giving a child food. So this woman is just generally pissed off that her family gave her kids food that she didn't want them to have. Not food that would truly be harmful. It's undermining parental authority. But that isn't harmful to the child.
  • nainai0585
    nainai0585 Posts: 199 Member
    Options
    No of course not, but myself and a very select few seem to be able to read between the lines and understand the meaning of the post without going off on a tangent and becoming trolls or attacking the post and the poster.

    So most of us read what she actually wrote (see excerpts above) and a few others "read between the lines," and the rest of us don't actually understand the OP? But the people who read what she didn't actually write understand the OP?

    I got ya.

    Shame on me for, you know, reading what she wrote and assuming she meant it. You're just so much smarter than the rest of us. :flowerforyou:

    Hmmm, then sarcasm must be literal for you.....that's unfortunate.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Options
    This topic is strongly worded on purpose - partly for fun, and also because I'm tired of having to run interference with food pushers.

    My kids are allowed sweets and treats in moderation - but the next person to sneak one of my kids a cookie behind my back may be force fed a full length video of my five year old crying after he gets his backside handed to him at his next wrestling tournament.

    Because eating a cookie will make him lose the tournament?
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Options
    No of course not, but myself and a very select few seem to be able to read between the lines and understand the meaning of the post without going off on a tangent and becoming trolls or attacking the post and the poster.

    So most of us read what she actually wrote (see excerpts above) and a few others "read between the lines," and the rest of us don't actually understand the OP? But the people who read what she didn't actually write understand the OP?

    I got ya.

    Shame on me for, you know, reading what she wrote and assuming she meant it. You're just so much smarter than the rest of us. :flowerforyou:

    Hmmm, then sarcasm must be literal for you.....that's unfortunate.
    No. I get sarcasm. The OP was not being sarcastic.

    Perhaps you don't understand what sarcasm is?
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    This topic is strongly worded on purpose - partly for fun, and also because I'm tired of having to run interference with food pushers.

    My kids are allowed sweets and treats in moderation - but the next person to sneak one of my kids a cookie behind my back may be force fed a full length video of my five year old crying after he gets his backside handed to him at his next wrestling tournament.

    Trolling...
  • nainai0585
    nainai0585 Posts: 199 Member
    Options
    I don't believe she is implying that the children will be harmed by the treats - which is where A LOT of people misunderstood her - she is simply saying to not give the child a treat just to make yourself fell better.
    Yes, the title is misleading and probably not the one she intended or the one she thought would cause such a slew of misunderstanding.

    Directly from the OP:
    If you're going around Mom and Dad to feed them high calorie, nutritionally void food - you're getting your own, warm, fuzzy, heart warming smile, "thank you," and, "I love you," AT THEIR EXPENSE - in straight, harsh terms: YOU ARE HARMING THEM TO MAKE YOURSELF FEEL GOOD. STOP.

    By going behind the parents back, you could potentially kill the child due to severe allergies (some are unknown at the time, like the earlier post of the 6 month old who was fed a peanut butter cup and suffered a severe allergy attack, causing the parents to spend the night in the ER). There can also be the adverse effect of the extreme sugar rush in some children, or terrible stomach aches. What about the religious or cultural restrictions that do not allow certain foods to be consumed? Are you aware of all the medication or dietary restrictions the child has, certain foods/ingredients may not be allowed due to their effect on the medication or the child's doctor has stated that the child cannot consume anything with that product in it.

    You may very well be harming the child just to make yourself feel better that you had given them something to eat.
    Backpedaling is a great calorie burner, isn't it?

    Nope, just clarifying for those who don't understand.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    This topic is strongly worded on purpose - partly for fun, and also because I'm tired of having to run interference with food pushers.

    My kids are allowed sweets and treats in moderation - but the next person to sneak one of my kids a cookie behind my back may be force fed a full length video of my five year old crying after he gets his backside handed to him at his next wrestling tournament.


    I totally hear you there m'am. The next time someone tries to wash my windows with that blue spray stuff, I'm going to send them a photograph of my mother eating a piece of fruitcake with the caption "Listen big poppa, how about you roll on up in my crib and clap on dem cheeks".


    Kidding aside, what sort of connection are you making between 1 cookie and your kid losing a wrestling match?
  • MyOwnSunshine
    MyOwnSunshine Posts: 1,312 Member
    Options
    This topic is strongly worded on purpose - partly for fun, and also because I'm tired of having to run interference with food pushers.

    My kids are allowed sweets and treats in moderation - but the next person to sneak one of my kids a cookie behind my back may be force fed a full length video of my five year old crying after he gets his backside handed to him at his next wrestling tournament.

    The sentence at the end of this post just made the whole thing even more disturbing!
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Options
    This topic is strongly worded on purpose - partly for fun, and also because I'm tired of having to run interference with food pushers.

    My kids are allowed sweets and treats in moderation - but the next person to sneak one of my kids a cookie behind my back may be force fed a full length video of my five year old crying after he gets his backside handed to him at his next wrestling tournament.


    I totally hear you there m'am. The next time someone tries to wash my windows with that blue spray stuff, I'm going to send them a photograph of my mother eating a piece of fruitcake with the caption "Listen big poppa, how about you roll on up in my crib and clap on dem cheeks".


    Kidding aside, what sort of connection are you making between 1 cookie and your kid losing a wrestling match?

    Sounds to me like Mom and Dad need to teach their kid about sportsmanship more than they need to worry about Grandma handing him a cookie.
  • chubby_checkers
    chubby_checkers Posts: 2,354 Member
    Options
    This topic is strongly worded on purpose - partly for fun, and also because I'm tired of having to run interference with food pushers.

    My kids are allowed sweets and treats in moderation - but the next person to sneak one of my kids a cookie behind my back may be force fed a full length video of my five year old crying after he gets his backside handed to him at his next wrestling tournament.


    I totally hear you there m'am. The next time someone tries to wash my windows with that blue spray stuff, I'm going to send them a photograph of my mother eating a piece of fruitcake with the caption "Listen big poppa, how about you roll on up in my crib and clap on dem cheeks".


    Kidding aside, what sort of connection are you making between 1 cookie and your kid losing a wrestling match?

    Sugar makes you fat and fat kids can't wrestle? I don't have kids so I don't know.
  • nainai0585
    nainai0585 Posts: 199 Member
    Options
    This topic is strongly worded on purpose - partly for fun, and also because I'm tired of having to run interference with food pushers.

    My kids are allowed sweets and treats in moderation - but the next person to sneak one of my kids a cookie behind my back may be force fed a full length video of my five year old crying after he gets his backside handed to him at his next wrestling tournament.

    Hmmmm - I officially apologize to everyone! I am now in the category of misunderstanding what was written based SOLELY on this comment!

    I do however stand behind my comments, especially about the one of Asking the Parents First before giving the child a treat. You just never know what is truly happening with the child or in the home and it is common courtesy and common sense to just ask first. You may save a child's life in the process (read my other comments about severe or potentially life threatening allergies, medication, etc).
  • beachlover317
    beachlover317 Posts: 2,848 Member
    Options
    This topic is strongly worded on purpose - partly for fun, and also because I'm tired of having to run interference with food pushers.

    My kids are allowed sweets and treats in moderation - but the next person to sneak one of my kids a cookie behind my back may be force fed a full length video of my five year old crying after he gets his backside handed to him at his next wrestling tournament.

    This answer is strongly worded on purpose - nothing fun in mind. If your 5 year old is crying when getting defeated in a wrestling tournament - there are more serious issues to be worried about than cookies.
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    Options
    I come back from working only to find that you guys have let this thread go back to its original topic and away from both art and dogs. I'm disappointed in all of you. :indifferent:
  • AJinBirmingham
    AJinBirmingham Posts: 497
    Options
    This topic is strongly worded on purpose - partly for fun, and also because I'm tired of having to run interference with food pushers.

    My kids are allowed sweets and treats in moderation - but the next person to sneak one of my kids a cookie behind my back may be force fed a full length video of my five year old crying after he gets his backside handed to him at his next wrestling tournament.

    Because eating a cookie will make him lose the tournament?

    One cookie? No. Too many cookies? Yes, especially if he misses a weight cut off and has to wrestle up a class.

Categories