Should obese people be allowed to have or raise children?

[IvoryBlackBishop]

I'm not necessarily "for" this idea, just being a devil's advocate here and postulating it. Obviously this "could" lead to slippery slope fallacies, regards it's an idea or proposal I believe to based on sound information and logic.

The modern obesity epidemic is arguably one of the biggest factors In preventable illness and deaths, arguably worse than smoking; people who choose to ignore the facts on health, such as what any reasonable or sensible doctor or nutritionist would consider a healthy overall diet; and as a result pass their dangerous and disgusting habits and lifestyles on to their children, setting a terrible health role model for others to follow and perpetutating the cycle of disease and sickness.

Having the state take the children away from obese people who show little to no interest in acknowledging their addiction and unhealthy lifestyle choices and habits and adopting them out to healthier parents who are better role models could be a significant factor in eliminating the obesity epidemic for future generations and creating a happier, healthier, society as a whole, given that unhealthy habits start in the home, with children being impressionable by immoral or immature adults; sadly the popular trend is to blame "fast food" or "junk food" industries, rather than the horrible and irresponsible parents who all this filth and degeneracy into their home and their children's diets, so naturally I blame them.

(This is also the reason why documentaries such as "Super Size Me" are ultimately childish and silly, not designed to actually target the cause at the roots, since if it did, it wouldn't sell to the immoral classes that it's pandered to begin with; from a rational perspective, even if one opted to purchase a medium soda instead of a "super sized soda" laden with addictive caffeine and sugar, this alone would be irrelevant minutia, given that it isn't the 'occasional' fast food treat which is responsible, nor any specific popular franchise like "McDonald's" or "Burger King" which people love to misplace the blame on, but rather the result of disgusting, repulsive, and sinfully gluttonous individuals consuming this food in selfish and gratuitously amounts on a regular basis; not to mention that "junk food" or "processed" food is much cheaper to buy off-brand in bulk at grocery or department stores like Wal-Mart, rather than in fast food restaurants with popular brand names like "McDonald's" or "Coca-Cola" to begin with.

[Toppsy Kretts]

I strongly believe the body is a temple and should be treated as such. Your supposed to be healthy and fit, tis is the natural human condition of the body. If your are physically uncapable of doing daily activities and your body is affecting your mood and state of mind then you must fix it.
The lie of 'genetics; is just an excuse to not be responsible for your actions. All this nonsense of i cant because is merely people not wanting to except there fate and the truth about themselves. it is sad and depressing to witness a society that sees this and promotes such a concept.

[Sculptor]

I'm not necessarily "for" this idea, just being a devil's advocate here and postulating it. Obviously this "could" lead to slippery slope fallacies, regards it's an idea or proposal I believe to based on sound information and logic.

It what way is this suggestion logical?
How are you going to stop them?
Especially when the state is complicite in the epidemics
Poor children are getting "free" orange juice which is great for Californian orange producers but is implicated in children getting T2D.
And the low fat high carb advice is great for corn factors and manufacturers of HFCS, but tragic for the population.


Have you any idea why people are fat?
Did you know that the current epidemic of obesity and T2 diabetes started at the exact moment that new politically motivated healthy eating guidelines, suggesting low fat diets , appeared?
Do you know that food corporation donate to American Dietetic, Heart institutions, universities putting out horrors such as the "nutrition compass" .
I ask if you know the first thing about this topic?

If you think this is a logical idea based on sound advice, then are you also going to stop smokers having children too?
What about people that drive cars?

This past year I have made it my business to know about metabolic health issues.

suggested reading..

2020, Taubes, Gary, The Case for Keto, Granta
2010, Taubes, Gary, Why We Get Fat, Anchor
2020, Macciochi, J., Immunity; the science of staying well, Experiment Pub.
2021, Lustig, Robert, Metabolical, Hodder & Stoughton
2013, Lustig, Robert, Fat Chance, Harper Collins.
2021, Specter, Tim, Spoon Fed,Vintage Books.
2021, Chatterje, Rangan, The Four Pillar Plan, Penguin.
2016, Fung, J, The Complete Guide To Fasting, Victory Belt Publishing.
2022 Johnson, Richard, Nature Wants Us to Be Fat, BenBella Books
2014 Perlmutter, Dr David, Grain Brain, Hodder & Stoughton.
2014, Teicholz, Nina, The Big Fat Surprise, Simon & Schuster.

I would especially recommend "Metabolical" and "The Big Fat Surprise" those books might get your arse out of your head a bit.

If you can't or wont read. Try these..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc_e5ME_5Cg&t=11s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1oRlVKwrio&t=246s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXiQgTZZqPg&t=1336s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2-XtxYqrPA&t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QizJhk4DaUY

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There's so much information that's readily available that there is simply no excuse for having a terrible diet. How stupid would a person need to be to think it's ok to give babies coke in their bottle? Or young children 'energy' drinks, coffee with sugar (or without), 'juice', soft drinks...? And yes. This happens all the time. How fucking hard is it to give a child WATER and only water? Children love water. Of course they fucking do, because we are made of water, and if we don't GET water we quickly die! How hard is it NOT to stuff your face with high fat, high carb garbage, and why would ANYONE need to be told that this is BAD for them??

[vegetariantaxidermy]

People do have different builds. Holding onto weight gave people an advantage in times of famine. I think the use of the word 'obese' is too general. A bad diet does more than make you fat. Some people are technically 'obese' but they still have glowing skin and clear eyes and are healthy.
The truly moronic OBESE are those gigantic mountains of shapeless blubber that you see hauling themselves around Walmart in Youtube videos. No pride (sometimes with no clothes), just grotesque caricatures of what humans are supposed to be. Sometimes they get desperate for money and end up on some dreadful 'reality' show with a name like, 'How I got to 800lb eating nothing but McDonalds' or some such.

[Gary Childress]

I lack it, but beauty has validity and truth all its own. You can't argue against it and come out victorious.

[Skip]

ALLOWED???
What kind of state are you running?
How would it be if, instead of getting on the case of poor, anxious and ignorant people, government did its proper work: regulating industry to produce wholesome food; keeping false advertisements off the air, bulking up the public education system and public media so that people are better informed; making sure every child has decent nutrition at school and adequate health care; subsidizing communal garden and greenhouse initiatives instead of agribusiness.
What's the state going to do with all the captured fat children, anyway - keep them in cages with silver blankets on hard tack until they're skinny?

[promethean75]

Cletus Klump will set ya'll straight @ 0:40

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I lack it, but beauty has validity and truth all its own. You can't argue against it and come out victorious.

What makes you think you 'lack' it? Because of ridiculous Hollywood caricatures who get 'fillers' every month to give them a chiselled jawline? Try being that woman who got her face ripped off by a chimp. I bet she understands 'beauty' a lot better now than she did before.

[Toppsy Kretts]

it depends on how obese that person is.
if that person is struggling with everyday life and lives on his or her 600lbs life shit then by no means should they be allowed to raise and or develop a child because they have clearly shown that they cannot raise and develop themselves in the correct and orderly fashioned way of their own life to sustain a natural human life.

[Toppsy Kretts]

I lack it, but beauty has validity and truth all its own. You can't argue against it and come out victorious.

What makes you think you 'lack' it? Because of ridiculous Hollywood caricatures who get 'fillers' every month to give them a chiselled jawline? Try being that woman who got her face ripped off by a chimp. I bet she understands 'beauty' a lot better now than she did before.

a man is meant to be hardened by work and conditioned by life, his body is a temple and one much teach it as such. one must discipline they're body as a house his loved ones should relax and feel contempt in.

train your body for protection of yourself and defense against the wicked for your loved ones.
you cannot accomplish this obese and unfit.

[rootseeker]

It is immoral and unethical to punish someone in any way at all for being obese. It is only moral and ethical to revoke a right when it is abused to harm others. Morbid obesity is a risk of harm to one's self, which is a natural right.

Unless the likelihood of an adverse health condition to the child exceeds 50% the grounds (of child removal) is weak because the basic rule of generality is that if something is true most of the time it is generally true, and that if something is false most of the time it is generally false. So, unless there is a greater than 50% chance of a specific health event based on statistics, there is generally no harm to the child and so no justification of removal.

There is a certain arbitrary decision being made as you don't have to chose 50% risk of something bad happening as a point at which you stop a behavior. However, I propose 50% is the most natural risk stopping point because there an equal number of arguments to be made in both directions. One could argue that any risk of any kind is good enough to revoke a right, or that only actualized harm is appropriate such that you must wait until actual harm takes place. My intuition is that the arguments meet in the middle where you also have the default generalization rule as mentioned.

Even there is harm involved, I propose it is unethical to apply punishment beyond what fixes the problem. So if a child is proven they are in danger of severe health event, the force appropriate to resolve the issue is a very long chain of events before you actually have a moral position to take away the child. Before you bring in the sledge hammer for someone's door try a kind voice and slowly work from there. All of justice is only civilized with due process.

If one does not own one's own body I don't see why a collection of people should own other people's bodies as a collective. Should two people have collectively more than twice the rights of one person? What is it about a collective that gives it the right that individuals don't have to remove a child from their home? I propose nothing does and that any right that a collective has, is also a right of each individual. The point is that you can't make arbitrary decisions that take away anything from other people, it has to be grounded in justice of equal rights. So in situations where the state is justified to take away a child so to are individuals acting alone, generally speaking.

[Age]

It is immoral and unethical to punish someone in any way at all for being obese. It is only moral and ethical to revoke a right when it is abused to harm others. Morbid obesity is a risk of harm to one's self, which is a natural right.

Unless the likelihood of an adverse health condition to the child exceeds 50% the grounds (of child removal) is weak because the basic rule of generality is that if something is true most of the time it is generally true, and that if something is false most of the time it is generally false.

Will you provide examples?

Until then, to me anyway, if some 'thing' is true, then that 'thing' is true, and vice-versa, if some 'thing' is false, then that 'thing' is false.

So, unless there is a greater than 50% chance of a specific health event based on statistics, there is generally no harm to the child and so no justification of removal.

What makes 'removal of a child' 'justified' at 51%?

There is a certain arbitrary decision being made as you don't have to chose 50% risk of something bad happening as a point at which you stop a behavior. However, I propose 50% is the most natural risk stopping point because there an equal number of arguments to be made in both directions.

Will you provide any examples?

Also, there are any number of 'arguments', which can be made, but the ONLY 'arguments' that are even worth copying and repeating are the ones that are sound AND valid ONLY.

ALL of the rest can be refuted, and thus are NOT worthy of being mentioned.

One could argue that any risk of any kind is good enough to revoke a right, or that only actualized harm is appropriate such that you must wait until actual harm takes place. My intuition is that the arguments meet in the middle where you also have the default generalization rule as mentioned.

Where does one find this so-called 'default generalization rule', EXACTLY?

Even there is harm involved, I propose it is unethical to apply punishment beyond what fixes the problem. So if a child is proven they are in danger of severe health event,

Who and/or what judges 'severe' here?

the force appropriate to resolve the issue is a very long chain of events before you actually have a moral position to take away the child.

What WILL BE FOUND is that the reason WHY children are/were abused HAS COME FROM the way those in societies who RULE "themselves" FIT to JUDGE "others" mis/behave "themselves".

Before you bring in the sledge hammer for someone's door try a kind voice and slowly work from there. All of justice is only civilized with due process.

This is about one of the smartest 'things' I have seen written in this forum. Although 'it' still has a LONG WAY TO GO, JUST YET.

If one does not own one's own body I don't see why a collection of people should own other people's bodies as a collective. Should two people have collectively more than twice the rights of one person? What is it about a collective that gives it the right that individuals don't have to remove a child from their home? I propose nothing does and that any right that a collective has, is also a right of each individual. The point is that you can't make arbitrary decisions that take away anything from other people, it has to be grounded in justice of equal rights. So in situations where the state is justified to take away a child so to are individuals acting alone, generally speaking.

There is NO state that could be 'justified' in removing a 'child' from 'its' 'parents'.

And, ANY one here can 'TRY' and CHALLENGE me on 'this'.

[rootseeker]

It is immoral and unethical to punish someone in any way at all for being obese. It is only moral and ethical to revoke a right when it is abused to harm others. Morbid obesity is a risk of harm to one's self, which is a natural right.

Unless the likelihood of an adverse health condition to the child exceeds 50% the grounds (of child removal) is weak because the basic rule of generality is that if something is true most of the time it is generally true, and that if something is false most of the time it is generally false.

Will you provide examples?

Until then, to me anyway, if some 'thing' is true, then that 'thing' is true, and vice-versa, if some 'thing' is false, then that 'thing' is false.

Statements often have an implied "in general", which can mathematically be considered fuzzy logic truth values and in some respect as a "preponderance of evidence" in civil courts. 1) "Humans have five fingers." True, but a few humans do not have five fingers due to birth defects or accidents. 2) "People in the UK get to work by automobile." This became true in 1950's when more than 50% of people arrived at work by car as shown on a graph in the "modal share" Wikipedia.com article. Yet not all people in the UK get to work by automobile, only a majority. 3) "People in the class were getting bored, so the teacher told her best story." This style of language is quite common, and is less accurate but still understood by most people to mean true as a generality rather than a universality. Obviously, the closer to 50% false a statement is, then the less it will be agreed as true, but at 50% or below, people will almost always consider it false.

Circumstances where a statement refers to a fact as a generality is very context sensitive and relies heavily on intuition.

So, unless there is a greater than 50% chance of a specific health event based on statistics, there is generally no harm to the child and so no justification of removal.

What makes 'removal of a child' 'justified' at 51%?

The expectation of harm makes it justified. Any right that is abused by harming someone can be revoked by others in some way, as per the non-aggression principle. A parent intentionally causing an adverse health condition to their child is abusing their right to be a parent of their child. If there is a greater than 50% chance of an adverse health condition then it is expected that the parent will cause harm to the child, so there is justification of removal before actual harm. If someone throws a punch at you, you don't have to wait until it lands to defend yourself. You just have to be more sure than not that someone is throwing a punch. Human justice is always subjective in some way for that reason. The likelihood or harm is measured when it has not yet occurred. The actual harm done is measured when or if it has occurred. The due restraint of a wrongdoer in prevention of further harm is another measurement for justice.

There is a certain arbitrary decision being made as you don't have to chose 50% risk of something bad happening as a point at which you stop a behavior. However, I propose 50% is the most natural risk stopping point because there an equal number of arguments to be made in both directions.

Will you provide any examples?

Also, there are any number of 'arguments', which can be made, but the ONLY 'arguments' that are even worth copying and repeating are the ones that are sound AND valid ONLY.

ALL of the rest can be refuted, and thus are NOT worthy of being mentioned.

Suppose you are with a friend who is in an argument with someone over cutting in line. The person seeming to cut in line starts getting aggressive by encroaching on your friend's personal space. The accused line-cutter clenches their fist. They start to bring their elbow back. They fully and quickly extend their elbow back, completely "winding up". At that point your friend begins to wrestle them to the ground. Your friend waited until he was more sure than not he was going to get punched at to take action against the aggressive person.

One could argue that any risk of any kind is good enough to revoke a right, or that only actualized harm is appropriate such that you must wait until actual harm takes place. My intuition is that the arguments meet in the middle where you also have the default generalization rule as mentioned.

Where does one find this so-called 'default generalization rule', EXACTLY?

It is found in "preponderance of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities" in most civil court systems. In fuzzy logic (mathematics) a statement is assigned a truth value of 0 to 1. When combining fuzzy logic with "balance of probabilities" you end up with a less imprecise system to determine truth values as probabilistic logic, a somewhat unexplored but very important branch of logic. Human justice uses this worth or without formality because of the need to weigh multiple stories in a balance, iconified by the scale image used in so many courts.

Even there is harm involved, I propose it is unethical to apply punishment beyond what fixes the problem. So if a child is proven they are in danger of severe health event,

Who and/or what judges 'severe' here?

Any person attempting to render justice is judging "severe". They should use at least the golden rule analog, the same standard of damage that they should expect someone else to stop them from doing a similar harm by removal of children they care for, and furthermore use a boundary stopping point (using force to stop someone) that they have agreed with others to stop a severe health event. "Severe" is the point at which the damage done to the child will clearly exceed the damage done to the child by removing the child. If someone removed a child based on one bruise one time caused by a parent, it would almost certainly do more harm to the child to remove them from their parents entirely. So a child should not be removed from a home causing minor harm to their child for that reason. One has to factor in the emotional trauma and risk of getting as bad or worse of a new parent.

the force appropriate to resolve the issue is a very long chain of events before you actually have a moral position to take away the child.

What WILL BE FOUND is that the reason WHY children are/were abused HAS COME FROM the way those in societies who RULE "themselves" FIT to JUDGE "others" mis/behave "themselves".

A society has people who abuse a child. The same society has judges, at least some of which who have abused a child. These judges then judge those who abuse a child, even though they them self may have done that. That is the case, but to the degree the justice is properly and equally rendered, the hypocritical justice is better than no justice.

If one does not own one's own body I don't see why a collection of people should own other people's bodies as a collective. Should two people have collectively more than twice the rights of one person? What is it about a collective that gives it the right that individuals don't have to remove a child from their home? I propose nothing does and that any right that a collective has, is also a right of each individual. The point is that you can't make arbitrary decisions that take away anything from other people, it has to be grounded in justice of equal rights. So in situations where the state is justified to take away a child so to are individuals acting alone, generally speaking.

There is NO state that could be 'justified' in removing a 'child' from 'its' 'parents'.

And, ANY one here can 'TRY' and CHALLENGE me on 'this'.

There are people who are more and less qualified as parents. Modern government/states are all unqualified as a parent. However, there are instances in which children have been removed by the state and then quickly placed into loving homes. One scenario is a drug addict whose primary value for their child is using them to get money for drugs such as by prostitution of the child. That scenario has happened and was justification for removal by state because while the state did remove the children, the children then went from a harmful living situation into a helpful living situation in most cases. In some cases that failed to occur and those were the unjustified cases. The unqualified state in many cases took the child, but then placed the child in a qualified private home. As soon as a qualified parent gets custody of the child, only then would it be wrongful to remove the child. But so long as there is qualified parenting likely to result, custody going from a terrible parent a temporary state custodian is an improved track and morally acceptable.

A beginning presumption of a parent is that they care for their child more than anyone else. However, that isn't always the case, which can kick out the core moral presumption for custody. Of course basic property rights are another moral legging, but an instance of harm kicks that one out too.

[Age]

It is immoral and unethical to punish someone in any way at all for being obese. It is only moral and ethical to revoke a right when it is abused to harm others. Morbid obesity is a risk of harm to one's self, which is a natural right.

Unless the likelihood of an adverse health condition to the child exceeds 50% the grounds (of child removal) is weak because the basic rule of generality is that if something is true most of the time it is generally true, and that if something is false most of the time it is generally false.

Will you provide examples?

Until then, to me anyway, if some 'thing' is true, then that 'thing' is true, and vice-versa, if some 'thing' is false, then that 'thing' is false.

Statements often have an implied "in general", which can mathematically be considered fuzzy logic truth values and in some respect as a "preponderance of evidence" in civil courts. 1) "Humans have five fingers." True, but a few humans do not have five fingers due to birth defects or accidents.

So,

1. What IS the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth? And,

2. WHY NOT just SAY the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, INSTEAD, especially when it is FAR SIMPLER and FAR EASIER to just SAY and EXPRESS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, ANYWAY?

2) "People in the UK get to work by automobile." This became true in 1950's when more than 50% of people arrived at work by car as shown on a graph in the "modal share" Wikipedia.com article. Yet not all people in the UK get to work by automobile, only a majority.

SO AGAIN, WHY NOT just SAY and EXPRESS the ACTUAL Truth, which is FAR SIMPLER and EASIER to do ANYWAY?

3) "People in the class were getting bored, so the teacher told her best story." This style of language is quite common, and is less accurate but still understood by most people to mean true as a generality rather than a universality. Obviously, the closer to 50% false a statement is, then the less it will be agreed as true, but at 50% or below, people will almost always consider it false.

BUT WHY do people like 'you' work or speak in such CONVOLUTED WAYS?

WHY even bother talking about what you define as 'generally false' or 'generally true' WHEN just talking about what IS ACTUALLY True, or ACTUALLY false, could be done?

If and when one does this there is NOTHING to 'dispute' NOR 'refute'.

Circumstances where a statement refers to a fact as a generality is very context sensitive and relies heavily on intuition.

But the 'intuition' I HAVE is to REMOVE ALL DOUBT, and thus what you are implying or referring to as being 'generality' here.

So, unless there is a greater than 50% chance of a specific health event based on statistics, there is generally no harm to the child and so no justification of removal.

What makes 'removal of a child' 'justified' at 51%?

The expectation of harm makes it justified.[/quote]

And what makes the 'expectation of harm' Accurate?

Any right that is abused by harming someone can be revoked by others in some way, as per the non-aggression principle.

BUT 'revoking' someone of some 'thing' could be seen as 'aggression', itself.

A parent intentionally causing an adverse health condition to their child is abusing their right to be a parent of their child.

So, EVERY parent who feeds a child unnecessary food, which causes a so-called 'adverse health condition', is ABUSING their right to a parent of children, right?

Either way, would I be wrong in saying that absolutely EVERY 'thing' you do NEVER causes ANY 'adverse health condition' upon "another", right?

BECAUSE if 'you' DID, then 'you' ARE ABUSING your 'right' to be a parent and/or fellow citizen of earth, right?

Also, when does 'adverse', itself, come-into-play, EXACTLY?

If there is a greater than 50% chance of an adverse health condition then it is expected that the parent will cause harm to the child,

BUT at 50%, or less, CHANCE of 'an adverse health condition', then it is NOT expected that 'harm' will be caused, right?

so there is justification of removal before actual harm.

BUT there is NEVER a 'justification' for removing children FROM THEIR parents.

If someone throws a punch at you, you don't have to wait until it lands to defend yourself.

WHY NOT?

WHO or WHAT, EXACTLY, gave 'me' THE RIGHT to so-call 'defend' "myself"?

You just have to be more sure than not that someone is throwing a punch.

And HOW do 'I' DECIDE 'this', EXACTLY?

Human justice is always subjective in some way for that reason.

SO, WHY are 'you' CLAIMING that 'you' KNOW, EXACTLY, WHEN it is RIGHT or WRONG to REMOVE 'children' FROM THEIR OWN 'parents'?

The likelihood or harm is measured when it has not yet occurred.

By WHO, and USING WHAT 'measuring tool/instruments', EXACTLY?

The actual harm done is measured when or if it has occurred.

Could you speak MORE OBVIOUSLY here?

The due restraint of a wrongdoer in prevention of further harm is another measurement for justice.

And HOW or IN WHAT WAY are the "wrongdoers" RESTRAINED WHEN it is ALL of 'you', adult human beings, ARE DOING Wrong?

There is a certain arbitrary decision being made as you don't have to chose 50% risk of something bad happening as a point at which you stop a behavior. However, I propose 50% is the most natural risk stopping point because there an equal number of arguments to be made in both directions.

Will you provide any examples?

Also, there are any number of 'arguments', which can be made, but the ONLY 'arguments' that are even worth copying and repeating are the ones that are sound AND valid ONLY.

ALL of the rest can be refuted, and thus are NOT worthy of being mentioned.

Suppose you are with a friend who is in an argument with someone over cutting in line.

Okay.

The person seeming to cut in line starts getting aggressive by encroaching on your friend's personal space.

Okay.

The accused line-cutter clenches their fist.

Okay.

They start to bring their elbow back.

Okay.

They fully and quickly extend their elbow back, completely "winding up".

Okay.

At that point your friend begins to wrestle them to the ground.

Okay.

Your friend waited until he was more sure than not he was going to get punched at to take action against the aggressive person.

Okay.

But SO WHAT?

Was this just an example of your, supposed, '50% is the most natural risk stopping point'?

If yes, then what has 'this' got to do with one KNOWS, FOR SURE, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, WHEN so-called 'obese people' should be or should NOT be ALLOWED to have or raise children?

By the way, what DEFINES an 'obese person', EXACTLY, anyway?

One could argue that any risk of any kind is good enough to revoke a right, or that only actualized harm is appropriate such that you must wait until actual harm takes place. My intuition is that the arguments meet in the middle where you also have the default generalization rule as mentioned.

Where does one find this so-called 'default generalization rule', EXACTLY?

It is found in "preponderance of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities" in most civil court systems.

Ah, so one has to go to a court, 'after the event', to work out what the so-called 'default generalization rule' is, EXACTLY, OR, go to a court, or lawyer, 'before AN event', to work 'this' out, FULLY.

In fuzzy logic (mathematics) a statement is assigned a truth value of 0 to 1. When combining fuzzy logic with "balance of probabilities" you end up with a less imprecise system to determine truth values as probabilistic logic, a somewhat unexplored but very important branch of logic. Human justice uses this worth or without formality because of the need to weigh multiple stories in a balance, iconified by the scale image used in so many courts.

Even there is harm involved, I propose it is unethical to apply punishment beyond what fixes the problem. So if a child is proven they are in danger of severe health event,

Who and/or what judges 'severe' here?

Any person attempting to render justice is judging "severe".

SO, what DEFINES 'severe' could be as MULTITUDE as there ARE people 'attempting' to so-call 'render justice'. Which, by the way, could be in the number OF absolutely EVERY capable person on earth, which would be in the number of just about EVERY adult human being.

They should use at least the golden rule analog, the same standard of damage that they should expect someone else to stop them from doing a similar harm by removal of children they care for, and furthermore use a boundary stopping point (using force to stop someone) that they have agreed with others to stop a severe health event.

BUT the so-called 'golden rule', on its own, IS absolutely ABSURD , IRRATIONAL, and ILLOGICAL.

"Severe" is the point at which the damage done to the child will clearly exceed the damage done to the child by removing the child.

Well REMOVING, or STEALING, a LOVED ONE FROM a 'child', that is; a parent, then this could cause about the MOST HARM and DAMAGE done.

If someone removed a child based on one bruise one time caused by a parent, it would almost certainly do more harm to the child to remove them from their parents entirely. So a child should not be removed from a home causing minor harm to their child for that reason. One has to factor in the emotional trauma and risk of getting as bad or worse of a new parent.

There ARE quite A LOT of 'variables' here, right?

the force appropriate to resolve the issue is a very long chain of events before you actually have a moral position to take away the child.

What WILL BE FOUND is that the reason WHY children are/were abused HAS COME FROM the way those in societies who RULE "themselves" FIT to JUDGE "others" mis/behave "themselves".

A society has people who abuse a child.

There is NOT, and I will repeat NOT, a 'society', in which this could be read, in the days when this is being written, that does NOT have people who ABUSE children. There IS, also, NOT a child who is NOT being ABUSED, NEITHER.

The same society has judges, at least some of which who have abused a child. These judges then judge those who abuse a child, even though they them self may have done that. That is the case, but to the degree the justice is properly and equally rendered, the hypocritical justice is better than no justice.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'That' is NOT 'Justice'.

What IS 'Justice' IS VERY DIFFERENT.

If one does not own one's own body I don't see why a collection of people should own other people's bodies as a collective. Should two people have collectively more than twice the rights of one person? What is it about a collective that gives it the right that individuals don't have to remove a child from their home? I propose nothing does and that any right that a collective has, is also a right of each individual. The point is that you can't make arbitrary decisions that take away anything from other people, it has to be grounded in justice of equal rights. So in situations where the state is justified to take away a child so to are individuals acting alone, generally speaking.

There is NO state that could be 'justified' in removing a 'child' from 'its' 'parents'.

And, ANY one here can 'TRY' and CHALLENGE me on 'this'.

There are people who are more and less qualified as parents.

Will you name 'them'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Modern government/states are all unqualified as a parent.

'Modern' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

And, if ANY 'government' or 'state' is UNQUALIFIED as a parent, then, REALLY, HOW 'modern' is 'that government or state' anyway?

However, there are instances in which children have been removed by the state and then quickly placed into loving homes. One scenario is a drug addict whose primary value for their child is using them to get money for drugs such as by prostitution of the child. That scenario has happened and was justification for removal by state because while the state did remove the children, the children then went from a harmful living situation into a helpful living situation in most cases.

And, as I ALLUDED TO EARLIER, HOW and WHY did 'those parents' END UP like 'that'?

LEARN and UNDERSTAND HOW and WHY, then you ALSO WILL SEE and UNDERSTAND WHO IS ACTUALLY DOING, and CAUSING, the MOST HARM and DAMAGE IN society.

In some cases that failed to occur and those were the unjustified cases.

ANY 'time' an adult human being FAILS absolutely ANY child, then 'that' IS ANOTHER 'unjustified case'.

The unqualified state in many cases took the child, but then placed the child in a qualified private home.

AND, in MANY cases 'the state' TAKES children, and then PUTS 'them' IN ABUSIVE private homes.

In fact BECAUSE in the days when this is being written EVERY child is being ABUSED in one form or another BY EVERY adult, then in ALL cases ALL children ARE living IN ABUSIVE households, UNDER the so-called "care and protection" of so-called loving and/or qualified parents.

BUT, NONE of 'you', adult human beings, reading 'this' in the days when this is being written, would even STOP and CONSIDER 'this' for MORE THAN A SECOND, if ANY of 'you' even STOPPED FOR 'this long'.

As soon as a qualified parent gets custody of the child, only then would it be wrongful to remove the child.

And, what is 'qualified' based UPON and in relation TO, EXACTLY?

But so long as there is qualified parenting likely to result, custody going from a terrible parent a temporary state custodian is an improved track and morally acceptable.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is ANOTHER example of just how Wrong, MISINFORMED, and 'backwards' adult's SIGHTS and VIEWS WERE, BACK THEN, when this was being written.

A beginning presumption of a parent is that they care for their child more than anyone else.

Here is ANOTHER example of WHY 'the world' WAS in 'such the mess' that 'it' WAS, BACK in THOSE DAYS, when this was being written.

However, that isn't always the case, which can kick out the core moral presumption for custody. Of course basic property rights are another moral legging, but an instance of harm kicks that one out too.

What we ALSO SEE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of NEVER A QUESTION ASKED, NOR A CHALLENGE EVEN STARTING, BECAUSE, ONCE AGAIN, the people here just WANTED TO EXPRESS and EXCLAIM what they BELIEVE is true, ONLY. They did NOT like to even CONSIDER that their OWN VIEWS or BELIEFS could be wrong in ANY way, shape, NOR form.