Father Labeled ‘Unfit’ for Refusing to Take His Son to McDonald’s!?

[Neil D]

Sorry, not FauxNews.....maybe the rest of the media...but definately NOT FoxNews....

[bonnie]

Of course they have an agenda, but it is not what you think. The agenda is to make money, to maximize viewership/readership and thereby maximize advertising dollars.

So you know this to be a made up story to maximize advertising dollars? How is it you have that information?

You know that a child advocate would not take a situation and run with it? You know that a child that is used to getting his demands met would not complain with a partial story to a parent that would side with him?

Events blown out of proportion are not uncommon in a contentious divorce or custody dispute.Or do you think that is a fairy tale made up by reporters to sell advertising.

Tell me,have you dealt with social services of any kind on a long term basis?

We were foster parents for a number of years and some of the bone headed decisions made by certain individuals were beyond comprehension. All in the interest of the child of course.

[Neil D]

I first saw the story on AOL,the Huffington Post. I also have a yahoo account and it was on yahoo news.

I then saw it on facebook from Fox news.

[bonnie]

Well, YOU brought it here from FauxNews...and that is where I saw it...I would still ignore it...too sensational...and we were counseled to avoid sensational news..it affects our thinking....or lack of it...

[joeb]

I see someone here is quoting George Bernard Shaw as someone worth listening to. Below are a few more of his quotes.

Quote:

"The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else."

The following 2 quotes are on how to use gas chambers in society.

Quote:

"We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …

Quote:

A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."

Quote:

"The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?"

What are the "hard cases"? Those with Downs Syndrome, mental retardation, major disabilities, the chronically ill, etc....

Besides being a major supporter of eugenics and thinking Hitler had the right idea, the man also believed in the abolition of all private property. He believed the state should own everything. Do a search for the Fabian Society, and you'll get a better idea of what Shaw stood for, and actively supported in political circles.

[Neil D]

I see someone here is quoting George Bernard Shaw as someone worth listening to. Below are a few more of his quotes.

Isn't this considered an infraction of the rules of posting on the internet, to hijack and change the subject of the thread? On any other board, this infraction could get you banned/removed from the board entirely since this was considered trollish behavior...

If you want to talk about GBS, start a new thread.

[pierrepaul]

Originally Posted By: pierrepaul

Of course they have an agenda, but it is not what you think. The agenda is to make money, to maximize viewership/readership and thereby maximize advertising dollars.

So you know this to be a made up story to maximize advertising dollars? How is it you have that information?

Umm - no. Never did I suggest that the story was made up. What I suggested, and what is patently evident from the story, is that the story is based on the court filing. The story probably, almost certainly, accurately reports the contents of the court filing.

The point I was trying to make, is that court filings, statements of claim, demand letters, and similar documents drafted and prepared in the context of litigious proceedings, are not intended to be unbiased, neutral statements of fact.

The reporter did nothing wrong. He/She reported the contents of the court filing. Never did the reporter issue an opinion as to whether or not the allegations were true. What is unfortunate is the public that generally doesn't understand the difference between unproven allegations and facts.

As for the reporter's motives and the news services' motives, you should know that these are not charities. Market share and advertising revenues drive the news business. Stories are selected on the basis of what the editors/producers think will be of interest to their readers/viewers. The unusual usually trumps the usual.

[bonnie]

Quote:

The point I was trying to make, is that court filings, statements of claim, demand letters, and similar documents drafted and prepared in the context of litigious proceedings, are not intended to be unbiased, neutral statements of fact.

That is pretty well understood.

Quote:

The reporter did nothing wrong. He/She reported the contents of the court filing. Never did the reporter issue an opinion as to whether or not the allegations were true. What is unfortunate is the public that generally doesn't understand the difference between unproven allegations and facts.

The reporter is not to issue a opinion.Nor are they expected to address the motives of either parent

Only did this occur?Did the father refuse to give into a tantrum by a child? Did the mother take partial information and attempt to use it against the father? Was a lawsuit filed?

Quote:

As for the reporter's motives and the news services' motives, you should know that these are not charities. Market share and advertising revenues drive the news business. Stories are selected on the basis of what the editors/producers think will be of interest to their readers/viewers. The unusual usually trumps the usual.

Not sure who is guilty of believing a news org is a charity?

If they don't choose stories they believe their readers are interested in,they will soon be out of business.

[bonnie]

Joab,

It is probably good advice not to address the OP's seeming agreement with a man like George Shaw. When you read the story, and make personal comments that you basically can't believe or infer that there are people who are that stupid but nevertheless, there they are. It's a good thing that there are news sources like this one that shows people reinforces my ideas of reality it probably will be viewed as straying from the story.

Whether or not you haven't learned anything about the world, really, ...except that there are selfish, greedy, stupid people inflicting pain on others...Reinforces your belief system...you haven't learn anything except to "tickle your ears" really doesn't have much to do with the story itself.

Obviously there is contention between this couple and they have a child that throws tantrums when denied what he wants.The "child expert" found out about it in some way so you almost have to assume the mother is the one that did so.

How many news org's that report the story is immaterial.When all news stories are basically the same it is rather telling if you keep harping on one as the guilty party of sensationalism

[pierrepaul]

Did the father refuse to give into a tantrum by a child?

[cricket]

Too bad the father didn't provide a meal to his son, instead of giving him an option of "going with nothing". It's true that a child should not be forced to eat, but reasonable nourishment should always be offered AND provided to a person. I think that's the real issue here--that the boy was not given a meal, but instead allowed to go hungry. Some children are stubborn. So are some adults.

I love the book, Where the Wild Things Are. In it, the little boy goes to his room and plays and plays and plays...when he is ready, his meal is still on the table waiting for him. And because his parents love him so much, it's still hot!

[bonnie]

Too bad the father didn't provide a meal to his son, instead of giving him an option of "going with nothing". It's true that a child should not be forced to eat, but reasonable nourishment should always be offered AND provided to a person. I think that's the real issue here--that the boy was not given a meal, but instead allowed to go hungry. Some children are stubborn. So are some adults.

I love the book, Where the Wild Things Are. In it, the little boy goes to his room and plays and plays and plays...when he is ready, his meal is still on the table waiting for him. And because his parents love him so much, it's still hot!

People have different methods in raising their children.

The son did have a choice,to eat at another place.

One meal missed because of a temper tantrum is hardly to affect his overall development.

There are those that do not see letting a child ignore mealtime and decide when he will decide to appear as an act of love.

Not all life lessons are best learned in that manner.

We had a set mealtime. Raising 8 children it was not up to each one to decide when they may want to appear.

If they were not there or had let me know why they wouldn't be there when the meal was over they had missed their chance till the next meal. It only happened once or twice and then they decided they could be there at the proper time.

[cricket]

In a divorce situation, it is best to have all the bases covered.

Bye.

[olger]

In a divorce situation, it is best to have all the bases covered.

Bye.

I wouldn't know anything about that.

`G

[cricket]

Good for you 'G. Unfortunately, I know quite a lot about that situation. My parents divorced when I was 11. Divorce can be ugly and truly horrible for the children involved. Sometimes all a kid really wants is to be heard, loved, and acknowledged. And maybe, just maybe, in this case there was a whole lot more going on that made that kid refuse to eat anything but McDonald's. I suggested that the man have a meal available because withholding a meal is grounds (in some judge's opinions) for denial of parental rights.

[olger]

Sorry to hear your family story. The good news is that we have God's permission to break the generational pain chain. Ezekiel 18 and 33.

Walk with the King,

G

[joeb]

Joab,

It is probably good advice not to address the OP's seeming agreement with a man like George Shaw. When you read the story, and make personal comments that you basically can't believe or infer that there are people who are that stupid but nevertheless, there they are. It's a good thing that there are news sources like this one that shows people reinforces my ideas of reality it probably will be viewed as straying from the story.

Whether or not you haven't learned anything about the world, really, ...except that there are selfish, greedy, stupid people inflicting pain on others...Reinforces your belief system...you haven't learn anything except to "tickle your ears" really doesn't have much to do with the story itself.

Obviously there is contention between this couple and they have a child that throws tantrums when denied what he wants.The "child expert" found out about it in some way so you almost have to assume the mother is the one that did so.

How many news org's that report the story is immaterial.When all news stories are basically the same it is rather telling if you keep harping on one as the guilty party of sensationalism

To tell the truth, Bonnie, I didn't even get around to reading the opening post on this thread. For some reason when I opened the thread for the first time all I saw was Neil's quote coming from George Bernard Shaw, and since Shaw was evil I thought it was a good idea to show what he really believed. Oh, he made quotes that, taken outside the overall context of what he believed, sound pretty good, when a person knows what he really stood for even those quotes become very questionable.

[Tom Wetmore]

Moderator Note:

That is a problem that shouldn't derail the topic. You have basically acknowledged a lack of respect for the person starting the topic, that you think your ideological differences with the person who wrote one short sentence that was not even apart of the discussion or topic should preempt the topic so you can vent about things unrelated even to the sentence that promoted your ire.

Next time you feel such an urge resist it and show some respect for those already engage in a discussion by contributing something to it. Don't interrupt with an off topic rant. Just start your own topic and see if anyone else cares enough to have that conversation with you.

Or better still, since it seems your intent was to correct or educate the one using that quote as a signature quote on the assumption that person might just be ignorant about Shaw, send him a PM to avoid both derailng the topic and potentially embarrassing someone.