Parents Sue Zoo - For or Against?
Replies
-
Exactly. It sucks, but there were safeguards in place. If someone chooses to ignore those safeguards, they are assuming full liability for any danger.
The only safeguard was a sign saying "don't do this."
Here is a warning sign:
So I guess the tobacco companies need to do more because if we get lung cancer, due to our own neglect to adhere to the warning, it is the tobacco companies fault for our own decisions to smoke therefore we can file a lawsuit against the company? The field of medicine has told / informed these companies and the public time and time again that their product is causing harm and death. So by using your current line of thinking it is the tobacco companies fault for not doing more to prevent us from doing this and we are not at fault because we are too ignorant /dumb to adhere to warnings?0 -
So, then what? People chose to ignore what was in place for their own safety. Next should we just put plastic tubes through all the walkways so that people can't stray from the path or be lifted over a wall?
and the wall and bar....that in itself is a safeguard, one that appears to be ignored over and over....The only safeguard was a sign saying "don't do this."
Oh you mean the railing that they were fully aware people ignore all day long?
Do you really think it's sufficient to put up a railing and sign and just wash your hands of the whole thing, even though you know people ignore the railing and sign all day long?
Imagine watching parent after parent after parent putting their kid up on the railing, knowing that if any of those kids fell they would die in front of a hundred onlookers. Wouldn't you, as the zoo administrator, feel some responsibility when one of the kids finally fell and you had done nothing to prevent it?
People need to learn to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming everyone else when they do something stupid.0 -
You could do something as simple as using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing, so that you couldn't sit your child on it. No one can deny that would be cheap and trivial. No, it wouldn't make it 100% safe but that's not the point. Nothing is going to be 100% safe. However, it would have prevented pretty much everybody from sitting their child on the railing.0
-
So, then what? People chose to ignore what was in place for their own safety. Next should we just put plastic tubes through all the walkways so that people can't stray from the path or be lifted over a wall?
and the wall and bar....that in itself is a safeguard, one that appears to be ignored over and over....The only safeguard was a sign saying "don't do this."
Oh you mean the railing that they were fully aware people ignore all day long?
Do you really think it's sufficient to put up a railing and sign and just wash your hands of the whole thing, even though you know people ignore the railing and sign all day long?
Imagine watching parent after parent after parent putting their kid up on the railing, knowing that if any of those kids fell they would die in front of a hundred onlookers. Wouldn't you, as the zoo administrator, feel some responsibility when one of the kids finally fell and you had done nothing to prevent it?
People need to learn to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming everyone else when they do something stupid.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one is saying anything like what you're saying. Plastic tubes? Don't be ridiculous.
I'm saying that the zoo administration should have done *something* to mitigate a very dangerous situation they were fully aware existed at their attraction.0 -
What if then, they just hoisted them completely clear of the railing?
The parent wanted her kid to see better. She'd circumvent any security measure to do so. If the nets were safer, and she knew so, she'd probably feel even happier about dangling her kid over.0 -
But then you know parents will end up holding their kids up in their arms "to see over it" and as young children get excited and start squirming, someone drops their child on a spike. Then we run into a lawsuit saying the spikes are dangerous and the zoo shouldn't do that even though it's warned against lifting your children up by them.You could do something as simple as using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing, so that you couldn't sit your child on it. No one can deny that would be cheap and trivial. No, it wouldn't make it 100% safe but that's not the point. Nothing is going to be 100% safe. However, it would have prevented pretty much everybody from sitting their child on the railing.0 -
But then you know parents will end up holding their kids up in their arms "to see over it" and as young children get excited and start squirming, someone drops their child on a spike. Then we run into a lawsuit saying the spikes are dangerous and the zoo shouldn't do that even though it's warned against lifting your children up by them.You could do something as simple as using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing, so that you couldn't sit your child on it. No one can deny that would be cheap and trivial. No, it wouldn't make it 100% safe but that's not the point. Nothing is going to be 100% safe. However, it would have prevented pretty much everybody from sitting their child on the railing.
Holding your kid high enough to see over it is not even remotely the same thing as sitting them on the railing with their legs hanging over the edge.0 -
It's not being ridiculous, and there's no reason to be rude. It's a way to prevent anyone from being able to lift children over an exhibit railing. I'm simply following your argument that the zoo should take responsibility when they know people ignore safety precautions. If people are going to ignore the safety precautions, that's a way to prevent that.
So, then what? People chose to ignore what was in place for their own safety. Next should we just put plastic tubes through all the walkways so that people can't stray from the path or be lifted over a wall?
and the wall and bar....that in itself is a safeguard, one that appears to be ignored over and over....The only safeguard was a sign saying "don't do this."
Oh you mean the railing that they were fully aware people ignore all day long?
Do you really think it's sufficient to put up a railing and sign and just wash your hands of the whole thing, even though you know people ignore the railing and sign all day long?
Imagine watching parent after parent after parent putting their kid up on the railing, knowing that if any of those kids fell they would die in front of a hundred onlookers. Wouldn't you, as the zoo administrator, feel some responsibility when one of the kids finally fell and you had done nothing to prevent it?
People need to learn to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming everyone else when they do something stupid.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one is saying anything like what you're saying. Plastic tubes? Don't be ridiculous.
I'm saying that the zoo administration should have done *something* to mitigate a very dangerous situation they were fully aware existed at their attraction.
I agree that it's not a good solution, but I'm just drawing attention to the fact that by forcing the zoo to protect people from their own stupidity when they ignore precautions, you can't choose where to draw the line. People are ignoring the precautions so when do they start to be held responsible for their actions?0 -
What if then, they just hoisted them completely clear of the railing?
The parent wanted her kid to see better. She'd circumvent any security measure to do so. If the nets were safer, and she knew so, she'd probably feel even happier about dangling her kid over.
I seriously doubt that you would see dozens of people dangling their children over the barrier every day. That's pretty far out there.
But, still, if that actually happened many times a day, and the zoo knew about it, they would be obligated to do something about it IMO.
If the zoo knows that people are doing very dangerous things with their children routinely all throughout the day at one of their attractions, they should take some steps to prevent it. No one is saying make everything 100% safe or idiot-proof. What I am saying is that they have some obligation to make things they KNOW are dangerous and KNOW that people do all day long more safe.0 -
They're both stupid things to do at an exhibit for carnivorous animals. In either situation, the parent should be responsible.
But then you know parents will end up holding their kids up in their arms "to see over it" and as young children get excited and start squirming, someone drops their child on a spike. Then we run into a lawsuit saying the spikes are dangerous and the zoo shouldn't do that even though it's warned against lifting your children up by them.You could do something as simple as using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing, so that you couldn't sit your child on it. No one can deny that would be cheap and trivial. No, it wouldn't make it 100% safe but that's not the point. Nothing is going to be 100% safe. However, it would have prevented pretty much everybody from sitting their child on the railing.
Holding your kid high enough to see over it is not even remotely the same thing as sitting them on the railing with their legs hanging over the edge.0 -
I agree that it's not a good solution, but I'm just drawing attention to the fact that by forcing the zoo to protect people from their own stupidity when they ignore precautions, you can't choose where to draw the line. People are ignoring the precautions so when do they start to be held responsible for their actions?
You can't choose where to draw the line? What are you talking about? They choose the draw the line somewhere at each and every exhibit. Here they drew the line at a railing and a sign. How is that different from drawing the line at a railing and sign and a safety net? Or drawing the line at a sign and railing that you can't sit on? You draw the line at the flamingo exhibit with a small railing. You draw the line at the jaguar enclosure with plexiglass and a moat. You draw the line at the king cobra exhibit with a sealed glass cage. Etc etc.0 -
They're both stupid things to do at an exhibit for carnivorous animals. In either situation, the parent should be responsible.
But then you know parents will end up holding their kids up in their arms "to see over it" and as young children get excited and start squirming, someone drops their child on a spike. Then we run into a lawsuit saying the spikes are dangerous and the zoo shouldn't do that even though it's warned against lifting your children up by them.You could do something as simple as using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing, so that you couldn't sit your child on it. No one can deny that would be cheap and trivial. No, it wouldn't make it 100% safe but that's not the point. Nothing is going to be 100% safe. However, it would have prevented pretty much everybody from sitting their child on the railing.
Holding your kid high enough to see over it is not even remotely the same thing as sitting them on the railing with their legs hanging over the edge.
But in one situation, if you drop your kid he falls at your feet. In the other, if you drop your kid he gets eaten by wild animals.0 -
I'm not comfortable letting the zoo throw its hands up in the air and say "OH WELL! THERE WERE SIGNS!" when they knew full well that parents ignored the signs all day long and a trivial amount of work and money could have prevented the death.
You keep saying this is a "trivial" and "inexpensive" thing to do. I'd love to hear your credentials/research to back that up. As an engineer, I'm very aware of the design requirements to hold a given amount of force/weight, and of the cost of the materials required - not to mention the cost of paying a person to design it, paying people to install it, the costs go on and on and pile up quickly.
I'm not saying that someone's life is not worth this cost, but please stop making it sound like all they needed to do was buy a $20 volleyball net and have an employee hang it up after-hours one evening. It is neither a "trivial" nor "inexpensive" process.
THANK YOU!
I thought you bailed on us IC.
And, yes, good point from a valid source.
I left work and had a very active evening. Doesn't seem like any common ground was found between the two sides.
It baffles me that some people believe the zoo should make every exhibit 100% idiot proof regardless of the cost. Sadly the big winners on this one are going to be the lawyers.
It baffles me that people need to set up ridiculous straw men to argue their point.
No one said anything remotely like that.
No, you just keep beating the point that the costs to install a bigger net is trivial without providing anything to back it up.
What about the flashing walk/don't walk signs for a cross walk? Should there be a barrier preventing people from stepping off the curb when it is says don't walk?
As someone has already said, we live in a litigious society so it wouldn't surprise me.0 -
The point is, even if you add extra measures, people are going to find a way to circumvent those measures and do what they want. Every time that happens and leads to danger, we then just keep adding more measures. When does it stop and we say, "Hey, stop doing what you know you shouldn't. You brought danger on yourself."?I agree that it's not a good solution, but I'm just drawing attention to the fact that by forcing the zoo to protect people from their own stupidity when they ignore precautions, you can't choose where to draw the line. People are ignoring the precautions so when do they start to be held responsible for their actions?
You can't choose where to draw the line? What are you talking about? They choose the draw the line somewhere at each and every exhibit. Here they drew the line at a railing and a sign. How is that different from drawing the line at a railing and sign and a safety net? Or drawing the line at a sign and railing that you can't sit on? You draw the line at the flamingo exhibit with a small railing. You draw the line at the jaguar enclosure with plexiglass and a moat. You draw the line at the king cobra exhibit with a sealed glass cage. Etc etc.0 -
Not necessarily. If you're up against the railing with spikes and lift your child up to see over them and drop your child, they could then end up getting stabbed by the spike.
They're both stupid things to do at an exhibit for carnivorous animals. In either situation, the parent should be responsible.
But then you know parents will end up holding their kids up in their arms "to see over it" and as young children get excited and start squirming, someone drops their child on a spike. Then we run into a lawsuit saying the spikes are dangerous and the zoo shouldn't do that even though it's warned against lifting your children up by them.You could do something as simple as using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing, so that you couldn't sit your child on it. No one can deny that would be cheap and trivial. No, it wouldn't make it 100% safe but that's not the point. Nothing is going to be 100% safe. However, it would have prevented pretty much everybody from sitting their child on the railing.
Holding your kid high enough to see over it is not even remotely the same thing as sitting them on the railing with their legs hanging over the edge.
But in one situation, if you drop your kid he falls at your feet. In the other, if you drop your kid he gets eaten by wild animals.0 -
What if then, they just hoisted them completely clear of the railing?
The parent wanted her kid to see better. She'd circumvent any security measure to do so. If the nets were safer, and she knew so, she'd probably feel even happier about dangling her kid over.
I seriously doubt that you would see dozens of people dangling their children over the barrier every day. That's pretty far out there.
But, still, if that actually happened many times a day, and the zoo knew about it, they would be obligated to do something about it IMO.
If the zoo knows that people are doing very dangerous things with their children routinely all throughout the day at one of their attractions, they should take some steps to prevent it. No one is saying make everything 100% safe or idiot-proof. What I am saying is that they have some obligation to make things they KNOW are dangerous and KNOW that people do all day long more safe.
One thing to point out is that attractions like this will need to pass some kind of inspections, yes? So in the 116 year history of this establishment I would think that if an exhibit did not pass inspection the park would be told to fix it, yes?0 -
Poor child. Sad situation. Stupid lawsuit.0
-
Not necessarily. If you're up against the railing with spikes and lift your child up to see over them and drop your child, they could then end up getting stabbed by the spike.
They're both stupid things to do at an exhibit for carnivorous animals. In either situation, the parent should be responsible.
But then you know parents will end up holding their kids up in their arms "to see over it" and as young children get excited and start squirming, someone drops their child on a spike. Then we run into a lawsuit saying the spikes are dangerous and the zoo shouldn't do that even though it's warned against lifting your children up by them.You could do something as simple as using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing, so that you couldn't sit your child on it. No one can deny that would be cheap and trivial. No, it wouldn't make it 100% safe but that's not the point. Nothing is going to be 100% safe. However, it would have prevented pretty much everybody from sitting their child on the railing.
Holding your kid high enough to see over it is not even remotely the same thing as sitting them on the railing with their legs hanging over the edge.
But in one situation, if you drop your kid he falls at your feet. In the other, if you drop your kid he gets eaten by wild animals.
Spike? It doesn't need to be a spike. Just a post with a rounded top that you can't sit on.
Six Flags has these in the queues for most of its attractions. The railings are metal bars and instead of having a flat horizontal bar at the top, the metal bars continue through the top of the handrail. They're just square metal bars. You can't stab yourself with them, but you can't sit down on them either.0 -
Not necessarily. If you're up against the railing with spikes and lift your child up to see over them and drop your child, they could then end up getting stabbed by the spike.
They're both stupid things to do at an exhibit for carnivorous animals. In either situation, the parent should be responsible.
But then you know parents will end up holding their kids up in their arms "to see over it" and as young children get excited and start squirming, someone drops their child on a spike. Then we run into a lawsuit saying the spikes are dangerous and the zoo shouldn't do that even though it's warned against lifting your children up by them.You could do something as simple as using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing, so that you couldn't sit your child on it. No one can deny that would be cheap and trivial. No, it wouldn't make it 100% safe but that's not the point. Nothing is going to be 100% safe. However, it would have prevented pretty much everybody from sitting their child on the railing.
Holding your kid high enough to see over it is not even remotely the same thing as sitting them on the railing with their legs hanging over the edge.
But in one situation, if you drop your kid he falls at your feet. In the other, if you drop your kid he gets eaten by wild animals.
Spike? It doesn't need to be a spike. Just a post with a rounded top that you can't sit on.
Six Flags has these in the queues for most of its attractions. The railings are metal bars and instead of having a flat horizontal bar at the top, the metal bars continue through the top of the handrail. They're just square metal bars. You can't stab yourself with them, but you can't sit down on them either.
0 -
The point is, even if you add extra measures, people are going to find a way to circumvent those measures and do what they want. Every time that happens and leads to danger, we then just keep adding more measures. When does it stop and we say, "Hey, stop doing what you know you shouldn't. You brought danger on yourself."?I agree that it's not a good solution, but I'm just drawing attention to the fact that by forcing the zoo to protect people from their own stupidity when they ignore precautions, you can't choose where to draw the line. People are ignoring the precautions so when do they start to be held responsible for their actions?
You can't choose where to draw the line? What are you talking about? They choose the draw the line somewhere at each and every exhibit. Here they drew the line at a railing and a sign. How is that different from drawing the line at a railing and sign and a safety net? Or drawing the line at a sign and railing that you can't sit on? You draw the line at the flamingo exhibit with a small railing. You draw the line at the jaguar enclosure with plexiglass and a moat. You draw the line at the king cobra exhibit with a sealed glass cage. Etc etc.
That is the question, isn't it?
And who ultimately decides?
Would that be one of the roles of a lawsuit?
Could suing then be deemed as beneficial at this point?0 -
The point is, even if you add extra measures, people are going to find a way to circumvent those measures and do what they want. Every time that happens and leads to danger, we then just keep adding more measures. When does it stop and we say, "Hey, stop doing what you know you shouldn't. You brought danger on yourself."?I agree that it's not a good solution, but I'm just drawing attention to the fact that by forcing the zoo to protect people from their own stupidity when they ignore precautions, you can't choose where to draw the line. People are ignoring the precautions so when do they start to be held responsible for their actions?
You can't choose where to draw the line? What are you talking about? They choose the draw the line somewhere at each and every exhibit. Here they drew the line at a railing and a sign. How is that different from drawing the line at a railing and sign and a safety net? Or drawing the line at a sign and railing that you can't sit on? You draw the line at the flamingo exhibit with a small railing. You draw the line at the jaguar enclosure with plexiglass and a moat. You draw the line at the king cobra exhibit with a sealed glass cage. Etc etc.
Yes, someone may find a way to circumvent the measures. But how many? If changing the railing design made the number of people dangling their children into the pen drop from a dozen a day to a dozen a decade, that would be effective and worthwhile.
I think it's immoral and unethical for the zoo to knowingly allow people to put their kids on the rail day in and day out, knowing how dangerous it is, without doing anything at all about it.0 -
I'm saying that the zoo administration should have done *something* to mitigate a very dangerous situation they were fully aware existed at their attraction.
Against.
They *DID* do something...there are windows and fencing in a enclosure for people to look thru and signs telling people to stay off the rail(s)...People need to take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming everyone else when they do something stupid. (seriously, 116 years of NO Accidents has to mean *something*)
I used to watch people putting or allowing their kids to climb on, swing from, sit on the rails in fast food places when I worked there as a young woman. I would, very politely, ask them to get down. THE PARENTS would cop an attitude with me for this. THEN complain to my manager(s) as well as telling me to mind my own business (only not quite so politely). Boss would then tell me same as the zoo bosses did their employee "it's not your concern."
People are frakin' stupid, that's never gonna change. It's unfortunate that we live in a society where we believe "I Hurt! and SOMEBODY has to pay."
As an aside; I hate zoos and circuses.0 -
Against the lawsuit.
HOWEVER, I feel the zoo *should* be smacked with a fine or something of that nature. This happened due to negligence on both sides. The mother should have never, ever lifted her child onto to that railing. Never in a million years would I let my child try to bypass a safety railing in order to get a better view. But, the zoo is also at fault, especially if similar incidents of children being lifting onto or over the safety railings have occurred prior to this. I've never been to a zoo (and I've been to a good deal of zoos), that didn't have a fail safe safety measure put up around particularly dangerous animal exhibits to prevent tragedies like this from occurring. At my cities zoo, every single dangerous animal exhibit is either encased in glass, or has an empty, moat like pit surrounding the exhibit, so if someone *does* fall in, it'd be impossible for the animal to reach them, and the worst that would occur would be a broken bone from the fall.
And for those who have stated, "Maybe the zoo doesn't make enough revenue to put up those kind of enclosures," then you know what? Don't have the damn exhibit. Again, I don't feel the zoo is completely liable for the child's death, but I *do* feel like they should be forced to install better safety protocols to ensure this can never happen again. The zoo should not assume that everyone has the common sense to protect themselves and their children. If they're going to put lethal animals on display, it's their job to ensure that those animals can't harm the general public.
But again, to be clear, I think the lawsuit is utterly ridiculous.0 -
I said "spike" because when you first suggested the idea, your words were,
Not necessarily. If you're up against the railing with spikes and lift your child up to see over them and drop your child, they could then end up getting stabbed by the spike.
They're both stupid things to do at an exhibit for carnivorous animals. In either situation, the parent should be responsible.
But then you know parents will end up holding their kids up in their arms "to see over it" and as young children get excited and start squirming, someone drops their child on a spike. Then we run into a lawsuit saying the spikes are dangerous and the zoo shouldn't do that even though it's warned against lifting your children up by them.You could do something as simple as using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing, so that you couldn't sit your child on it. No one can deny that would be cheap and trivial. No, it wouldn't make it 100% safe but that's not the point. Nothing is going to be 100% safe. However, it would have prevented pretty much everybody from sitting their child on the railing.
Holding your kid high enough to see over it is not even remotely the same thing as sitting them on the railing with their legs hanging over the edge.
But in one situation, if you drop your kid he falls at your feet. In the other, if you drop your kid he gets eaten by wild animals.
Spike? It doesn't need to be a spike. Just a post with a rounded top that you can't sit on.
Six Flags has these in the queues for most of its attractions. The railings are metal bars and instead of having a flat horizontal bar at the top, the metal bars continue through the top of the handrail. They're just square metal bars. You can't stab yourself with them, but you can't sit down on them either.
Those bars at Six Flags are square and flat on top, and I've been to Six Flags many, many times and see people sitting on them all the time, mostly children.using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing0 -
Against the lawsuit.
HOWEVER, I feel the zoo *should* be smacked with a fine or something of that nature. This happened due to negligence on both sides. The mother should have never, ever lifted her child onto to that railing. Never in a million years would I let my child try to bypass a safety railing in order to get a better view. But, the zoo is also at fault, especially if similar incidents of children being lifting onto or over the safety railings have occurred prior to this. I've never been to a zoo (and I've been to a good deal of zoos), that didn't have a fail safe safety measure put up around particularly dangerous animal exhibits to prevent tragedies like this from occurring. At my cities zoo, every single dangerous animal exhibit is either encased in glass, or has an empty, moat like pit surrounding the exhibit, so if someone *does* fall in, it'd be impossible for the animal to reach them, and the worst that would occur would be a broken bone from the fall.
And for those who have stated, "Maybe the zoo doesn't make enough revenue to put up those kind of enclosures," then you know what? Don't have the damn exhibit. Again, I don't feel the zoo is completely liable for the child's death, but I *do* feel like they should be forced to install better safety protocols to ensure this can never happen again. The zoo should not assume that everyone has the common sense to protect themselves and their children. If they're going to put lethal animals on display, it's their job to ensure that those animals can't harm the general public.
But again, to be clear, I think the lawsuit is utterly ridiculous.
A lawsuit is, as far as I can tell, the proper method for the law to hold the zoo partly responsible for the incident. Otherwise I agree with you.
With that, I'll leave this thread. I have other things to do. I'll just once again reiterate that it is unethical for the zoo to knowingly allow people to so easily and regularly put themselves and their children in such dangerous situations without doing anything about it.0 -
You could do something as simple as using posts that are somewhat pointed at the top, instead of a flat railing, so that you couldn't sit your child on it. No one can deny that would be cheap and trivial. No, it wouldn't make it 100% safe but that's not the point. Nothing is going to be 100% safe. However, it would have prevented pretty much everybody from sitting their child on the railing.
and then the kid falls on the pointed posts and youd cry about how the zoo knew they were sharp and that children climbed up there even though they shouldnt
if i had betting money i would say youre a lawyer0 -
You guys totally have me pegged. I'm a liberal lawyer.
:huh:0 -
I dont get why there was a ledge people would be able to sit their children on above dangerous animals...really i dont.
Wondering if stupid teenager morons could push each other off by accident as well...ALWAYS see them sitting on stuff they shouldnt be sitting on...and most of them feel invincible and would ignore signs as well.
People can be stupid...a sign? how many languages was it in? was it viewable to everyone from every direction? this may have been covered...sorry if i missed it.
BAH the whole thing is disturbing.0 -
Against. I am sick of parents who sue after their children die as a result of their negligence.
We had a 1st grader who was hit by a car walking to school a few years back. She was walking across a busy road at 7am, in the dark to attend a before school breakfast. Where was mom? She had no job so she was alseep in her bed while her 6 year old walk to school in the dark.
She sued the school for not having crossing guards that early. Though they are stationed at the crossing for a full hour before/after the start of school.0 -
against.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions