Re: Isn't this Child Abuse?

[toto]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:29:52 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Don Quijote writes:
>
>> Freedom from predators?
>
>The most common predators of children are their own parents.

Not exactly.

http://www.fatherhood.org/articles/wh020601.htm

The second thing that caught my eye was the identity
of the perpetrators. Family friends and acquaintances
composed the largest group of perpetrators (28 percent),
followed by such relatives as uncles and cousins (18 percent),
stepfathers (12 percent), male siblings (10 percent),
biological fathers (10 percent), boyfriends (9 percent),
grandfathers and stepgrandfathers (7 percent), and
strangers (4 percent). Of these perpetrators, 51 percent
resided exclusively outside the household during the abuse,
whereas 39 percent resided exclusively within the household
during the abuse and 10 percent resided in the household for
a portion of the time the abuse was occurring.

What is interesting about these statistics is how they contrast
with the common view of who is the most likely person to
perpetuate child sexual abuse. As popularized by such
made-for-television movies as "Something About Amy,"
biological fathers are often thought to be the persons most
likely to perpetrate child sexual abuse. After that, strangers
are seen as presenting the greatest danger to children.

Yet, according to this study, only 10 percent of perpetrators
were biological fathers and only 4 percent were strangers.
Which means 86 percent of the perpetrators were known to
the family, but were someone other than the child's father.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[SuzyQ]

"Herman Rubin" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >Herman Rubin writes:
>
<snip>
> This is not what I was discussing. BTW, from 13 to 17,
> all efforts to put weight on me failed. By 19, eating
> no more and the same height, my problem was keeping my
> weight down.
> --

This is where I have a problem with that statement. Where your journaling
and counting calories on every single thing you ate? How do you know this?
--
SuzyQ
Weight 124
WW Lifetime Membership Feb 03

[Alf Christophersen]

On 14 Sep 2003 13:53:38 -0500, (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

>White flour was available about 4000 years ago. The
>Talmud (around 2000 years ago) calls on those who can
>tolerate unleavened bread made with white flour to use
>it during Passover.

But it was neither sifted, nor bleached with chlorine or H2O2 or
whatever you americans use for bleaching it (here it is only
mechanically sifted, but still quite devoid of nutrients, unlike the
mineral rich "white" flour 2000 years behind(from the ginding mill
stones,the only backside of that flour was avery bad effect on teeth
which was damaged by all small sand (sand dust) particles)

[Alf Christophersen]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:55:53 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>No, it is not. They are referred to as "empty calories" because they
>contain sources of energy in rapidly bioavailable form, but with a
>minimum of micronutrients. That is, they are mostly protein, fat,

But unrefined cane sugar (fluid) contain almost enough trivalent
chromium to keep chromomoduline active, making insulin fully active.
(Making insulin effect curve sharply sigmoid with top plateu-effect
about 10 times higher than insulin effect without chromomoduline
available where the dose effect curve is the usual hyperbole, but Vm
very low compared to the other).

[Alf Christophersen]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 01:30:38 +0200, Goran Tomaš
> wrote:

>No, sugar is a food.

Would rather say spice :-)
>
>Again, sugar is a food. It contains mostly simple carbs and not much
>else. It's high in calories and low in nutrients (macro and micro) -
>it's empty calorie.

If it contains anything else than fructose and glucose, it must be
because it has been contaminated, like floor dust etc. There is no
other nutrients there than sucrose. Period. You need a long range of
other compounds in your nutrition to sustain health. Of course you can
keep seemingly healthy for weeks on only sugar, but after some time
you will get ill and what is bad,most of the harm done to your body is
not reversible at all. Those harms you must live with for the rest of
your life, like damages done to your heart, bones (osteoporosis due to
complete lack of calcium in diet), broken teeth (due to calcium
lacking and bacteria living on the carbohydrates has done lot of harm)
plus plus plus. (The descriptions of damages done to your body may
fill a whole volume of books)

[Mxsmanic]

toto writes:

> Not exactly.

Childred are abused _overwhelmingly_ by their own parents. Abuse and
sex are not the same thing, and there are many types of abuse besides
sexual abuse. Overall, parents are responsible for most of it, and
mothers are responsible for more of it than fathers (probably because
mothers spend more time in contact with children).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

Alf Christophersen writes:

> There is no other nutrients there than sucrose. Period.

Sucrose is an extraordinarily important and useful nutrient.

That's kind of like saying that drinking water is bad because all it
contains is water.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[herb@none.non]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Roger Schlafly writes:
>
>> Try it. I assure you that rats and insects will eat refined flour
>> and white bread.
>
>Don't they realize that it is poisonous and cannot sustain life?

there were some tiny, flying beetles that got into the house this summer.
When I opened up a bag of (white) flour that I hadn't used for a while, I
discovered a bunch of them inside - all dead. I assumed they had somehow
OD'ed on it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> there were some tiny, flying beetles that got into the house this summer.
> When I opened up a bag of (white) flour that I hadn't used for a while, I
> discovered a bunch of them inside - all dead. I assumed they had somehow
> OD'ed on it.

They probably died happy, though.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Don Quijote]

Alf Christophersen > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:55:53 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
> >No, it is not. They are referred to as "empty calories" because they
> >contain sources of energy in rapidly bioavailable form, but with a
> >minimum of micronutrients. That is, they are mostly protein, fat,
>
> But unrefined cane sugar (fluid) contain almost enough trivalent
> chromium to keep chromomoduline active, making insulin fully active.
> (Making insulin effect curve sharply sigmoid with top plateu-effect
> about 10 times higher than insulin effect without chromomoduline
> available where the dose effect curve is the usual hyperbole, but Vm
> very low compared to the other).

I knew it was good, but not that good... ;)

"If I can't dance, I don't want to join your revolution."
-Emma Goldman

*guarapo: cane juice, a Caribbean staple.

THE GUARAPO REVOLUTION?

What if instead of using something totally abstract for national
identity--the flag, the anthem--or something which makes you different
in a suspicious way--religion, politics--we used something real
that everybody liked? Suppose that the symbol of national identity was
'food' and suppose that we spiced it up--in its erotic
connotation--wouldn't the little people prefer it?

Guess what, people love it! My first writing over 11 years ago was the
'Guarapo Revolution,' and--after its huge success--I modeled the
Jalapeno (Mexico), Arepa (Venezuela, Colombia), Banana
'Revolutions'...

While most other activists struggle to convince an overwhelmingly
skeptical public, I just shout the 'Guarapo Revolution' and most
people--at least those who most count: women, young people--stop in
their tracks to get it. They get two leaflets: the Guarapo Revolution
itself and the little stories with the solution being proposed...

Best of all, they want the Party, the Guarapo Party! All we got to do
is *throw the party*. That's what the little people want. At least
that's my experience among the Latin American people...

But I would have many more arguments for it:

-Nationalistic symbols--flag, anthem--divide, food differentiates yet unites.

-The leaflets are passed on, not wasted.

-The names really stick.

-It would secure food (not risk the famines or scarcities some
revolutions--USSR, China, Cuba--are known for).

-It would challenge junk food, a favorite method of globalization.

-It would constitute a 'back to basics' movement.

-It would distance the lion, since he only seems to know how to roar.

-The little people would have something better to think other than the
afterlife.

-It would be something really worth living and fun, the
revolution Emma Goldman would have liked to dance indeed...

The surveys in English don't convey the full power of it, but if you
can visualize the Brazilian Carnival, you get the idea...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote9

[Don Quijote]

Mxsmanic > wrote in message >...
> toto writes:
>
> > Not exactly.
>
> Childred are abused _overwhelmingly_ by their own parents. Abuse and
> sex are not the same thing, and there are many types of abuse besides
> sexual abuse. Overall, parents are responsible for most of it, and
> mothers are responsible for more of it than fathers (probably because
> mothers spend more time in contact with children).

In the case of junk food, child abuse is being done by the system.
Most parents wouldn't even know of the consequences of junk food.

They are being preyed upon by an indiscriminate lion... :(

[Don Quijote]

wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >Roger Schlafly writes:
> >
> >> Try it. I assure you that rats and insects will eat refined flour
> >> and white bread.
> >
> >Don't they realize that it is poisonous and cannot sustain life?
>
> there were some tiny, flying beetles that got into the house this summer.
> When I opened up a bag of (white) flour that I hadn't used for a while, I
> discovered a bunch of them inside - all dead. I assumed they had somehow
> OD'ed on it.

The flying beetles probably were as naive as children eating at
McDonald's. Although we cannot rule out a case of suicide... ;)

[Don Quijote]

Mxsmanic > wrote in message >...
> writes:
>
> > there were some tiny, flying beetles that got into the house this summer.
> > When I opened up a bag of (white) flour that I hadn't used for a while, I
> > discovered a bunch of them inside - all dead. I assumed they had somehow
> > OD'ed on it.
>
> They probably died happy, though.

Ignorance is Bliss... ;)

[Herman Rubin]

In article >,
SuzyQ > wrote:

>"Herman Rubin" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >Herman Rubin writes:

><snip>
>> This is not what I was discussing. BTW, from 13 to 17,
>> all efforts to put weight on me failed. By 19, eating
>> no more and the same height, my problem was keeping my
>> weight down.


>This is where I have a problem with that statement. Where your journaling
>and counting calories on every single thing you ate? How do you know this?

During the "lean" period, the doctors were trying to do so
as well. They did give me a vitamin tonic, which greatly
increased my food consumption. No weight gain ensued.

I suggest you learn something about the plethora of
biochemical reactions based on genetics and the resulting
hormonal activities which affect weight among other things.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

[Mxsmanic]

Don Quijote writes:

> In the case of junk food, child abuse is being
> done by the system.

What is "the system"?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Alf Christophersen]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:43:53 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>That's kind of like saying that drinking water is bad because all it
>contains is water.

Water contain lots of dissolved trace elements, so it is far more
healthier. Most of them are needed by body. Sucrose is just a waist.
The amount of sugars should rather come from fruits and other sweet
tasting stuff that also contain lots of other healthy stuff. Like
vitamins, antioxidants, trace elements, low molecular weight organic
compounds which only diet can give you etc. etc. etc. etc

[Alf Christophersen]

On 21 Sep 2003 11:22:53 -0700, (Don Quijote)
wrote:

>I knew it was good, but not that good... ;)

But the kernel of the cane is full of lots of things, so it is rather
bulky for each gram of sugar :-)

[Doug Freese]

Alf Christophersen wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:43:53 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>
>>That's kind of like saying that drinking water is bad because all it
>>contains is water.
>
>
> Water contain lots of dissolved trace elements, so it is far more
> healthier.

Wasn't it W.C. Fields that said, "I never drink water - fish *uck in
it!" I guess that constitutes trace elements.

> Most of them are needed by body. Sucrose is just a waist.

A waist? Is that measured in inches. Will the waste size of pants
now change to particles per million?




--
Doug Freese

[Don Quijote]

Mxsmanic > wrote in message >...
> Don Quijote writes:
>
> > In the case of junk food, child abuse is being
> > done by the system.
>
> What is "the system"?

The system is the one responsible for allowing junk food commercials
and clowns to prey on innocent children. We can say the lion is
preying on the young little animals... ;)

[Alf Christophersen]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:21:38 GMT, Doug Freese >
wrote:

>Wasn't it W.C. Fields that said, "I never drink water - fish *uck in
>it!" I guess that constitutes trace elements.

No, the minerals comes from mountains through the rivers emptying in
the sea, and from vulcanoes out in sea :-) Fish do not produce new
minerals, if so it would be a real sensation :-) Fish encourage
nuclear reactions producing new elements from old ones :-) (There is
another way, though, fishermen putting out the fish again after
injecting minerals :-) )

[Mxsmanic]

Alf Christophersen writes:

> Sucrose is just a waist.

Then why do doctors and hospitals feed patients sugar solutions
(dextrose, glucose, etc.)?

> The amount of sugars should rather come from fruits and other sweet
> tasting stuff that also contain lots of other healthy stuff. Like
> vitamins, antioxidants, trace elements, low molecular weight organic
> compounds which only diet can give you etc. etc. etc. etc

I know this has a certain romantic appeal, but it is difficult to
justify it objectively. There is no harm in eating sugar. Sure, you do
need other nutrients, but as long as you eat something other than sugar
regularly, the fact that you eat sugar will not hurt you (if you are in
normal health).

There seems to be a natural tendency in people to believe the
improbable. Counterintuitive notions attract them. In the world of
dieting, this type of belief is legion, and the belief that anything
that tastes good or is extensively refined is automatically bad for the
body is a very widespread but completely baseless belief.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Alf Christophersen]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:09:28 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>I know this has a certain romantic appeal, but it is difficult to
>justify it objectively. There is no harm in eating sugar. Sure, you do
>need other nutrients, but as long as you eat something other than sugar
>regularly, the fact that you eat sugar will not hurt you (if you are in
>normal health).

Displacing other nutrients from diet may turn fatal in the long run.
even if you are in normal health in the beginning. You will be devoid
of important factors for your heath rather quickly :-(

But, some gram of sugars daily do very little harm. But when just
drinking sugar pops, and eating empty calories like fried fries (of
potato, not from lamb, though, the last ones are far more nutious),
and no vegetables, meats, breads and so on like many young children do
today, you get devoid of minerals. eg. like trivalent chromium which
in turn will lower activity of chromomoduline and the effect of
insulin binding may be decreased to less than 10% of normal effect, at
same insulin amount released.
(Chromomodulin is downhill insulin binding to its receptor on the cell
surfaces)

[Mxsmanic]

Alf Christophersen writes:

> Displacing other nutrients from diet may turn fatal
> in the long run.

Unlikely except in the most extreme cases (a diet of nothing but sugar
water for six months, for example).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Don Quijote]

Another advantage to BBC and Scandinavian countries is that you don't
get nagged by your kids so
often... ;)

>I got another. ANY Commercial that causes me to be woken up with a
"Mommy I >want x." X= numerous toys and junk foods."


During the news this morning I heard about a study....kids have to nag
their parents an average of 9 times before they finally get X

Amazing what studies conduct...but more amazing is the effect of
advertising on our impressionable youth.

(And don't blame me for these opinions, I took them from Internet)

[Alf Christophersen]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:18:03 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Unlikely except in the most extreme cases (a diet of nothing but sugar
>water for six months, for example).

Like Coke, Fanta etc. Many kids live on that and most of them looks
like a balloon, perhaps some wider around waist than their height :-)
(and beside they have a hamburger and lots of potato chips, both from
purified ingredients like soy proteins and just afew grams of meat, as
a spice, and completely stripped for all nutrients, except
carbohydrats, no wonder why they swell like balloons :-)

[bencon]

First of all, if the children had been participating in sports to
begin with, the chances are that they would have never had the obesity
problem in the first place. It is the parents fault for not providing
an active environment for their child pre-school.

Secondly, how else would you recommend the sports programs raise
money? Can they hold a bake sale? Noooo, they will make the kids fat
with those horrible baked goods. Can they use school budget? NOoo,
it isn't fair to the tax payers. Mybe they can sell autographs!!!
Why don't we just cut out all sports since we cannot agree on how to
pay for them. Then all the kids will be fat and we won't be partial to
any of them. That makes since. Kids are not going to buy straight
water out of a vending machine, and juices have just as much sugar and
generally MORE calories than the soda.

We need to have more parental supervision in the home. That is where
the child learns the importance of being active. That is where the
child develops the power to decide when enough is enough. That is the
only answer. We cannot strip freedoms from the children. They will
never learn that way.

[Robert McCarty]

bencon wrote:

> First of all, if the children had been participating in sports to
> begin with, the chances are that they would have never had the obesity
> problem in the first place. It is the parents fault for not providing
> an active environment for their child pre-school.
>
> Secondly, how else would you recommend the sports programs raise
> money? Can they hold a bake sale? Noooo, they will make the kids fat
> with those horrible baked goods. Can they use school budget? NOoo,
> it isn't fair to the tax payers. Mybe they can sell autographs!!!
> Why don't we just cut out all sports since we cannot agree on how to
> pay for them. Then all the kids will be fat and we won't be partial to
> any of them. That makes since. Kids are not going to buy straight
> water out of a vending machine, and juices have just as much sugar and
> generally MORE calories than the soda.
>
> We need to have more parental supervision in the home. That is where
> the child learns the importance of being active. That is where the
> child develops the power to decide when enough is enough. That is the
> only answer. We cannot strip freedoms from the children. They will
> never learn that way.

CONWAY..GOOOOOD SHOW!!! B=0b1

[toto]

On 29 Sep 2003 14:25:41 -0700, (bencon) wrote:

>Why don't we just cut out all sports since we cannot agree on how to
>pay for them.

Frankly, team sports is not the best way to get exercise. A good PE
program will allow children to be active in many other ways. Very few
adults play any team sports as adults, so there is no reason why all
kids should be forced into participating in them.

PE should involve games that all children can enjoy and participate in
without being ridiculed if they are not particularly talented at them.
The competitive aspect of team sports doesn't really allow this.

I see almost no value to team sports in school except for the kids who
really enjoy them and this should be extra curricular and take the
place of their general PE class after elementary school. Other kids
should be given the choice of other activities at that point - might
be individual sports like tennis or swimming, might be dance or
aerobics or marching band. If physical activity is the point, then it
need not been a sport at all. Cooperative games that can be played
without competing are often as good or better for most kids.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

[Robert McCarty]

bencon wrote:

> First of all, if the children had been participating in sports to
> begin with, the chances are that they would have never had the obesity
> problem in the first place. It is the parents fault for not providing
> an active environment for their child pre-school.
>
> Secondly, how else would you recommend the sports programs raise
> money? Can they hold a bake sale? Noooo, they will make the kids fat
> with those horrible baked goods. Can they use school budget? NOoo,
> it isn't fair to the tax payers. Mybe they can sell autographs!!!
> Why don't we just cut out all sports since we cannot agree on how to
> pay for them. Then all the kids will be fat and we won't be partial to
> any of them. That makes since. Kids are not going to buy straight
> water out of a vending machine, and juices have just as much sugar and
> generally MORE calories than the soda.
>
> We need to have more parental supervision in the home. That is where
> the child learns the importance of being active. That is where the
> child develops the power to decide when enough is enough. That is the
> only answer. We cannot strip freedoms from the children. They will
> never learn that way.

Children LEARN from SMART parents...IQ is a function of learning!
(generally speaking outside of genetic problems) We have such a MIX
in the USA that all facets are shown. POLITICIANS try to make the
rules.
that's our MAIN problem! B-0b1

[Carol Frilegh]

In article >, toto
> wrote:

> On 29 Sep 2003 14:25:41 -0700, (bencon) wrote:
>
> >Why don't we just cut out all sports since we cannot agree on how to
> >pay for them.
>
> Frankly, team sports is not the best way to get exercise. A good PE
> program will allow children to be active in many other ways. Very few
> adults play any team sports as adults, so there is no reason why all
> kids should be forced into participating in them.
>
My pre-teen granddaughters are obesity challenged. Their best activity
is a soccer league. They need no urging to turn out for team play three
times a week but otherwise do the couch potato monster mash.

[Don Quijote]

(bencon) wrote in message >...
> First of all, if the children had been participating in sports to
> begin with, the chances are that they would have never had the obesity
> problem in the first place. It is the parents fault for not providing
> an active environment for their child pre-school.
>
> Secondly, how else would you recommend the sports programs raise
> money? Can they hold a bake sale? Noooo, they will make the kids fat
> with those horrible baked goods. Can they use school budget? NOoo,
> it isn't fair to the tax payers. Mybe they can sell autographs!!!
> Why don't we just cut out all sports since we cannot agree on how to
> pay for them. Then all the kids will be fat and we won't be partial to
> any of them. That makes since. Kids are not going to buy straight
> water out of a vending machine, and juices have just as much sugar and
> generally MORE calories than the soda.
>
> We need to have more parental supervision in the home. That is where
> the child learns the importance of being active. That is where the
> child develops the power to decide when enough is enough. That is the
> only answer. We cannot strip freedoms from the children. They will
> never learn that way.

Since you propose "freedom" for children you may as well give them the
'right to vote,' and who knows they may even chose to have health care
for children in America... ;)

[becky]

(Don Quijote) wrote in message >...
> (bencon) wrote in message >...
> > First of all, if the children had been participating in sports to
> > begin with, the chances are that they would have never had the obesity
> > problem in the first place. It is the parents fault for not providing
> > an active environment for their child pre-school.
> >
> > Secondly, how else would you recommend the sports programs raise
> > money? Can they hold a bake sale? Noooo, they will make the kids fat
> > with those horrible baked goods. Can they use school budget? NOoo,
> > it isn't fair to the tax payers. Mybe they can sell autographs!!!
> > Why don't we just cut out all sports since we cannot agree on how to
> > pay for them. Then all the kids will be fat and we won't be partial to
> > any of them. That makes since. Kids are not going to buy straight
> > water out of a vending machine, and juices have just as much sugar and
> > generally MORE calories than the soda.
> >
> > We need to have more parental supervision in the home. That is where
> > the child learns the importance of being active. That is where the
> > child develops the power to decide when enough is enough. That is the
> > only answer. We cannot strip freedoms from the children. They will
> > never learn that way.
>
> Since you propose "freedom" for children you may as well give them the
> 'right to vote,' and who knows they may even chose to have health care
> for children in America... ;)

Taking vending machines out of schools is not the way to solve the
problem of childhood obesity. i don't see it so much as a question of
freedoms as it is common sense. if you eat a lot of anything it is
not healthy. kids can drink soda and eat snacks in moderation. it is
also important to be active and not sit in front of the tv right when
they get home from school. these things need to be instilled at a
young age.