# Trick or treat?



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 30, 2013)

Not for you, fatty!


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 30, 2013)

I be offended!Therefore she must be hanged. It is my right.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2013)

Hmm...what is worse, giving candy to an overweight kid or dog piling them with disapproval during a holiday?

I know I'm giving out fistfuls of candy tomorrow night.  Weather permitting, of course.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 30, 2013)

Amazingly enough this Halloween will be the first in a few years in which the weather hasn't been hot as hell and ridiculously humid.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2013)

We've got a 30% chance of thunderstorms...which in Texas means anything from nothing to tornadoes.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 30, 2013)

For some reason I thought you were in California. Here in Miami be cloudy tomorrow. The temperature is supposed to be between 84-75. The last couple of years it has rained, and the temperature has been ~100+/-. So this year it's not bad.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2013)

Its the "Alcatraz"...


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 30, 2013)

No, you mentioned that you were in the entertainment industry. There is nothing entertaining about Texas.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 30, 2013)

Have you SEEN our Governor?  No, scratch that..have you HEARD our Governor?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 30, 2013)

Yes, I have, but he is only entertaining when he is up on a stage with other republicans trying to out-crazy each other.


----------



## Grehnhewe (Oct 31, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Not for you, fatty!



So obese or not, kids eat a bunch of candy on Halloween and Easter.  Adults might drink a lot on St. Patricks or New Years.  People eat a ton on Thanksgiving.  An occasional dalliance with excess is more the habit of healthy people.  What people do every day is what matters.  I do not think she is teaching any kind of lesson here.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2013)

I thought humiliation taught lessons?


----------



## Grehnhewe (Oct 31, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I thought humiliation taught lessons?



It only makes people feel more ostracized and anti-social.  Praise and reward works well on dogs.  Have a treat


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Oct 31, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yes, I have, but he is only entertaining when he is up on a stage with other republicans trying to out-crazy each other.




Please no politics.
Thanks!


----------



## Crothian (Oct 31, 2013)

More much ado about nothing. The internet does an amazing job of taking what at best should be a local news story and giving it a world wide audience.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2013)

Grehnhewe said:


> It only makes people feel more ostracized and anti-social.  Praise and reward works well on dogs.  Have a treat



/shakes fist


----------



## Grehnhewe (Oct 31, 2013)

goldomark said:


> /shakes fist



I would think a Communist canine would appreciate a reward for their efforts toward a greater good?


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2013)

That was another incarnation on another board. Good times.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 31, 2013)

Is it really that bad a thing to tell fatties not to eat too much candy?  We tell people not to smoke - hell, some countries require graphic pictures of cancer riddled organs on the packaging to try and discourage purchase.  She wasn't being an evil bully about it, either.  It's not like she was all like 'yo kid be fat, dawg, muzzle that pig' in her letter.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 31, 2013)

someone house will be TPed tonight and I got a burning bag for her door step


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2013)

You all are talking about the weather for Halloween - here in Boston we have a Red Sox win.  I wonder how many impromptu baseball players we'll get at the door this year...


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Is it really that bad a thing to tell fatties not to eat too much candy?




In a general sense, no, it isn't a bad thing.  In a specific sense - there is a time and a place for everything.  Telling someone something that they aren't going to want to hear in the wrong way will tend to increase their resistance to your statement, rather than their acceptance.  

Grenhewe actually hit upon part of it upthread.  Positive reinforcement training generally works better than negative reinforcement - you get better results if you reward desired behavior instead of punishing undesired behavior.  Specifically, when you use negative reinforcement, you have little control on what the subject associates with the negative stimulus.  When you give a kid that letter, they'll feel bad.  So, what's more likely - they'll figure that it is the treats that make them feel bad? Unlikely.  It is themselves that makes them feel bad?  Possibly - so now they are feeling shame and lack of self worth, which is not actually a good way to get people to be healthy.  Or, maybe it'll be the nasty, wart-ridden hag who gave them the letter?  Also possibly - and thus the TP and flaming bags of nasty substances in her future.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2013)

A holiday that encourage unhealthy habits sounds like a good time to do prevention. 

Whelp, if a 91-0 loss at football is a teaching moment for kids, why can't this be a teaching moment too?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2013)

goldomark said:


> A holiday that encourage unhealthy habits sounds like a good time to do prevention.




Well, you'd first have to establish that encouraging a bit of candy one day a year is really encouraging a long-term unhealthy habit.

And, my point is that no, during holidays probably *isn't* a good time to do prevention.  The real issue is their habits the rest of the year, not on the holiday, so you're associating the correction with the wrong event.  And, doing it especially on the holiday turns it into negative reinforcement, which is not a great or predictable tool. 

Dietary plans that do not allow for occasional deviations are generally far more likely to be abandoned than ones that remain constantly strict.  Giving someone a bit of excess to look forward to makes it a reward for being good most of the rest of the time.  Thus, we'd be more successful if we encouraged the healthy habit year round, but allowing folks to enjoy on the holidays.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2013)

I see you like to avoid questions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2013)

> ...why can't this be a teaching moment...




The football score came in the normal course of the game.  There was no variance or singling out.  The kids were treated the same.  By all accounts- I live in the general area- the kids handled it better than the parent who is suing.

The fat kids get scolding notes while normal kids get candy is singling out kids for scorn and derision.  It is taking a holiday and its traditions and making it into just another day of insults.  See Jane Elliott's 1968 Brown Eye/Blue Eye experiment for the kind of moment that gets taught by doing so.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 31, 2013)

goldomark said:


> A holiday that encourage unhealthy habits sounds like a good time to do prevention.
> 
> Whelp, if a 91-0 loss at football is a teaching moment for kids, why can't this be a teaching moment too?




It will be a teaching moment. It will teach people that if you do this you will get publicly shamed and ridiculed.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 31, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Grenhewe actually hit upon part of it upthread.  Positive reinforcement training generally works better than negative reinforcement - you get better results if you reward desired behavior instead of punishing undesired behavior.  Specifically, when you use negative reinforcement, you have little control on what the subject associates with the negative stimulus.  When you give a kid that letter, they'll feel bad.  So, what's more likely - they'll figure that it is the treats that make them feel bad? Unlikely.  It is themselves that makes them feel bad?  Possibly - so now they are feeling shame and lack of self worth, which is not actually a good way to get people to be healthy.  Or, maybe it'll be the nasty, wart-ridden hag who gave them the letter?  Also possibly - and thus the TP and flaming bags of nasty substances in her future.



Just want to point out a few things wrong with your comment. You are using positive and negative reinforcement incorrectly. The terms have nothing to do with good or bad. The terms positive and negative refer to the presentation or removal of a stimulus (reinforcer/aversive). So for example, if you were using a positive reinforcement procedure, you would be presenting some stimulus (reinforcer) contingent on the occurrence of a target behavior. Reinforcement results in an increase probability of the behavior occurring, or an increase in some dimension (rate, intensity, magnitude, etc.) of that behavior.
With a negative reinforcement procedure, you remove a stimulus (aversive), contingent on the occurrence of a target behavior. Because it is a reinforcement procedure, it still results in an increase in that target behavior.
Now, while you may think that you are using a reinforcement procedure, and that some stimulus you are presenting or removing is a reinforcer, it may not be the case. This terms (positive/negative reinforcement) are defined functionally. Meaning that the presentation/removal of a stimulus (aversive/reinforcer) results in an increase in the target behavior. 
If you are attempting to decrease a behavior, you would use a punishment procedure. Punishment refers to a decrease in behavior. You can use positive and negative reinforcement to reduce behavior.

So, assuming that the letter actually results in the kids decreasing their consumption of candy and other fattening foods, this would be an example of a positive punishment procedure (trick or treat -> receive letter ->decrease consumption of fattening foods). 

Finally, you can have very good control of the association in a negative reinforcement procedure.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 31, 2013)

Crothian said:


> It will be a teaching moment. It will teach people that if you do this you will get publicly shamed and ridiculed.



Some kids may not find the letter to be an aversive thing.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 31, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Some kids may not find the letter to be an aversive thing.




Doesn't matter. A teaching moment and someone actually learning something are two different things. I was also referring that the teaching moment is probably aimed at the person handing out the letter not the kids getting them.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Just want to point out a few things wrong with your comment. You are using positive and negative reinforcement incorrectly. The terms have nothing to do with good or bad. The terms positive and negative refer to the presentation or removal of a stimulus (reinforcer/aversive).




I know.

You think an overweight kid receiving such a letter instead of candy *won't* feel a negative stimulus from it?  

(I see your following post, that apparently you do think such a kid won't feel bad getting such a letter.  I can just leave it as - while there may be individuals, I think you're generally wrong about that. Very wrong, even.  I expect kids would generally feel shame and anger after getting such a letter in their trick-or-treat bag, which are generally classified in the "negative stimulus" column.)


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 31, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I know.



You know what?



> You think an overweight kid receiving such a letter instead of candy *won't* feel a negative stimulus from it?
> 
> (I see your following post, that apparently you do think such a kid won't feel bad getting such a letter.  I can just leave it as - while there may be individuals, I think you're generally wrong about that. Very wrong, even.  I expect kids would generally feel shame and anger after getting such a letter in their trick-or-treat bag, which are generally classified in the "negative stimulus" column.)



Nope, your assumption is wrong. I said some kids may not find it aversive. People are different. Some kids may find it to be aversive. Some people may not. It's just the truth. For example, you could tell some kid that you don't like him/her. That particular kid may 'feel' bad and may even cry. You can say the same thing to another kid, and he/she won't care. 
I'm not saying that there are no kids that will see it as an aversive stimulus. I'm saying that there are some kids that won't. Hel, there may be a kid that feels the letter is quite funny.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I said some kids may not find it aversive. People are different. Some kids may find it to be aversive. Some people may not. It's just the truth.




Truth, but of a limited sort.  It is not enough to say, "some will, some won't".

So, we put it back in context:  

The person giving out these letters does not generally know the kids personally, and cannot just give them to the ones who will not find it aversive.  So, how many recipients are apt to take it as a positive stimulus, and how many as a negative?  If more are going to take it negatively, then this is not a good way to reach the stated goal of encouraging good habits.  

You may be tempted to answer, "We cannot know."  I think that's not true - we can know.  I expect experts in child behavior already do know.  Beyond that, though, there's more plain knowledge of human nature and behavior.  Do you honestly think that enough kids will find this a positive experience for it to be a good idea?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2013)

As a former fat kid and current fat adult, I disapprove this woman's message.

(FWIW, my consumption issue wasn't and isn't candy, it's portion control of the good stuff.)


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Oct 31, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Truth, but of a limited sort.  It is not enough to say, "some will, some won't".
> 
> So, we put it back in context:
> 
> The person giving out these letters does not generally know the kids personally, and cannot just give them to the ones who will not find it aversive.  So, how many recipients are apt to take it as a positive stimulus, and how many as a negative?  If more are going to take it negatively, then this is not a good way to reach the stated goal of encouraging good habits.



 you missed one group of kids: the ones that will find the letter to be a neutral stimulus. The only way to find out how many kids will find the letter to be a reinforcing stimulus, a negative stimulus, or a neutral stimulus is to determine observe what happens to the behavior of each child after they have received the letter. Not everyone reacts the same way to the same stimulus.







> You may be tempted to answer, "We cannot know."  I think that's not true - we can know.  I expect experts in child behavior already do know.



 We don't. Sometimes some of us make calculated assumptions about how one group or another will behave in some situation, but those assumptions do a poor job of capturing the behavior of any one individual. 







> Beyond that, though, there's more plain knowledge of human nature and behavior.  Do you honestly think that enough kids will find this a positive experience for it to be a good idea?



first, that's not what I said please go back and read my post. Second, what would you consider to be "enough?"


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> We don't. Sometimes some of us make calculated assumptions about how one group or another will behave in some situation, but those assumptions do a poor job of capturing the behavior of any one individual.




Of course they do a poor job of capturing one individual.  The question isn't about individuals.  The question is, if someone hands out 20, or 100, of such things, are they doing more harm than good?  That, ultimately, will be the measure of such a letter, and it isnt' a matter of individuals, but of statistics.



> first, that's not what I said please go back and read my post.




It is acceptable for me to say things that are not about directly countering your statements, you know.  I am allowed to add my own material to the conversation.



> Second, what would you consider to be "enough?"




In effect, that's what I'm asking you.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 31, 2013)

Crothian said:


> It will be a teaching moment. It will teach people that if you do this you will get publicly shamed and ridiculed.



Or it will reinforce her beliefs, as being snarky with someone isn't the best way to changes their mind and might have the opposite effect.

As for the kids, it won't be as efficient as banning production of sugarry food and drinks (one can only wish), but it is better than being apathetic.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Oct 31, 2013)

Sugar is poison and must be banned! It is obviously the only reasonable solution!
*runs around wildly waving arms*


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 1, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Of course they do a poor job of capturing one individual.  The question isn't about individuals.  The question is, if someone hands out 20, or 100, of such things, are they doing more harm than good?  That, ultimately, will be the measure of such a letter, and it isnt' a matter of individuals, but of statistics.



Where did that question come from? 


> It is acceptable for me to say things that are not about directly countering your statements, you know.  I am allowed to add my own material to the conversation.



Sure, if you were doing that I'd have no problem. The problem is that you are countering a completely different argument. Like totally has nothing to do with what I said.


> In effect, that's what I'm asking you.



I don't make those types of judgements. I leave that to my clients to decide. It varies from individual to individual.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Nov 1, 2013)

Halloween?  Is that still a thing?  The churches in this town have effectively killed it.  Ratcheting up the fear about "predators" and "thugs" and such.  I mean, hello people, that's why you have an ADULT go along WITH the kids.  You really think something is going to happen to your kid with you standing right there?  Just how scared are you?

That aside... meh.  I see the woman's point, but I question the efficacy of her delivery.  Regardless, it's her choice.  And it's the choice of her neighbors to shun her if they find her behavior repulsive.


----------



## Grehnhewe (Nov 1, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Sugar is poison and must be banned! It is obviously the only reasonable solution!
> *runs around wildly waving arms*



Yes!  And thanksgiving is next. People hopped up on tryptophan and low-fat protein...there will be people jumping off bridges and passing out watching football.  The people need guidance. 

FYI My work was part of a local trick or treat event this afternoon.  All the little kids in costume so excited, eyes blood shot and mouths foaming from all the sugar...so awesome!  It is up to the parents if they eat all the candy tonight or over the next few weeks.  Although barfing off candy is probably a life lesson.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 1, 2013)

They could eat candy 'till they barf, then that frees up room for more candy!
Roman style!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 1, 2013)

We had wonderful weather for trick or treating: mid-60s to low 70s, a nice breeze and clear skies. I had the equivalent of 6 massive bags of candy. I was ready for hordes of kids...

And this year's crowd was sparse.

I did my usual, giving it candy by my not-so-small hands full...and I only gave away about half of what I bought.


----------



## Grehnhewe (Nov 1, 2013)

I have always wondered why vomitoriums and bidets are not more popular.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 1, 2013)

Well, that was a pretty poor showing: just over a  dozen Trick-or-Treaters total. A couple of individuals, and a few small groups. Last few years I had easily twice as many or more. Is  Trick-or-Treating disappearing from the country? Has it become the providence of  the shopping mall and stores to give people the illusion of safety?

Now, If you'll excuse me, I have 3 bags of unopened  candy to deal with.

(ah, the classic vomitorium jokes... I remember those)


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 1, 2013)

Grehnhewe said:


> I have always wondered why vomitoriums and bidets are not more popular.



Peasants snob what they perceive as snob.


----------



## Klirshon (Nov 1, 2013)

Vomitoriums Vomitoria are still used frequently. They just aren't designed for the misconception that a designated vomiting station would provide.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 1, 2013)

Or, to spell it out:







> vom·i·to·ry
> ˈväməˌtôrē/
> adjective
> 1.
> ...




Yes, I am a member of the Fun Police.  Also, a quick reminder: by law, editing "of the Fun Police" from the prior sentence is a misdemeanor violation when used to mock the office or persons of the Fun Police.  Fun Code §8701.45(d).


----------



## Morrus (Nov 1, 2013)

Yeah, the vomitorium was simply the the passageways which allowed the crowd to leave ampitheatres like the Coliseum.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with vomiting.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 1, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, the vomitorium was simply the the passageways which allowed the crowd to leave ampitheatres like the Coliseum.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with vomiting.



Why you gotta ruin everyone's fun, bro? Waddup wit dat?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 1, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Well, that was a pretty poor showing: just over a  dozen Trick-or-Treaters total. A couple of individuals, and a few small groups. Last few years I had easily twice as many or more. Is  Trick-or-Treating disappearing from the country? Has it become the providence of  the shopping mall and stores to give people the illusion of safety?




I don't know if the safety is an illusion or not.  How many incidents of doctored candy are associated with retail-trick-or-treating?

In my area, for a while, the tradition was changed out for parties on Halloween.  A large group of parents would get together to defray costs.

We had 16 come to our door last night.  That's an increase from previous years.  I think it is because more folks with young kids are moving into the area.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 1, 2013)

I have not seen a kid on Beggar's Night for about a decade. I live in the burbs and neighbors have children but everyone goes across the street to the newer houses that are built closer together.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 1, 2013)

> We had 16 come to our door last night.




Normally, I'd expect a few _groups_ of 16 hit our door.  We live in a small Dallas suburb, but we get kids from outside our neighborhood coming in by the vanload.

Maybe my neighbors have been stingy with the candy and the kids moved on?


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 1, 2013)

It was raining and cold here, yet we still took the kids out trick and treating. There was only a fraction of the kids out that were out last year.
However, candy contains sugar, and sugar is poison.
Obviously the only reasonable solution is to ban Halloween.
We must save the children!


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 1, 2013)

It's worth noting that the radio call-in that started this discussion has been dismissed as a hoax: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/br...letter for obese children likely a radio hoax

I had a decent turn out for Halloween this year, probably in the neighborhood of 40 kids.  That's a bit down from last year, but it was a drizzly out in the early afternoon and late evening, so weather was likely to blame for the lower volume.

We had relatively low Halloween turnout when we first moved into our house a few years ago, but I've been actively working to turn that around.  We decorate our house as much as our kids allow (about 20 carved pumpkins and some 4' tall homemade lighted ghosts this year), always dress in costume when answering the door, play related music/sound effects, and give out full sized candy bars.  Since we've started doing this, I've noticed that the number or kids is generally increasing, and Halloween decorations in the area are (slightly) on the rise.  Halloween really is a community thing, and getting involved is the best way to foster it.


----------



## Janx (Nov 1, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I don't know if the safety is an illusion or not.  How many incidents of doctored candy are associated with retail-trick-or-treating?
> 
> In my area, for a while, the tradition was changed out for parties on Halloween.  A large group of parents would get together to defray costs.
> 
> We had 16 come to our door last night.  That's an increase from previous years.  I think it is because more folks with young kids are moving into the area.




As a I recall, the whole doctored candy scare was a myth.  There are zero incidents of anybody getting a Razor Blade Apple, or whatnot.


And I do agree with you that regardless of correct terminology for negative/postive reinforcement, that handing out letters to fat kids instead of candy will very likely make the fat kid feel worse, not get better.

There are close to ZERO fat kids on the planet who don't know they are fat.  Some stranger stopping to tell them, "hey you're fat, you shouldn't eat more candy" is not likely to boost their self esteem and cause them to alter their life trajectory in a good way.

I got no clue how you get a person to change their lifestyle, but I am pretty sure ruining a fun time for them is not on the list of best practices.  Especially when fat people generally have a lower self esteem already (due to jerkholes singling them out about their weight in the past).


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 1, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> It was raining and cold here, yet we still took the kids out trick and treating. There was only a fraction of the kids out that were out last year.
> However, candy contains sugar, and sugar is poison.
> Obviously the only reasonable solution is to ban Halloween.
> We must save the children!



Couldn't we just ban children? I know we can all agree that children are the real problem.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 1, 2013)

Janx said:


> As a I recall, the whole doctored candy scare was a myth.  There are zero incidents of anybody getting a Razor Blade Apple, or whatnot.




Snopes says there are no clear cases of random poisonings with Halloween candy - there are a couple of targeted occurrances, where someone was using the myth to do harm.  Cases of physically doctored candy - pins, needles, or razors - are rare, but do occasionally occur.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/poison/halloween.asp

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/mayhem/needles.asp


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 1, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Snopes says there are no clear cases of random poisonings with Halloween candy - there are a couple of targeted occurrances, where someone was using the myth to do harm.  Cases of physically doctored candy - pins, needles, or razors - are rare, but do occasionally occur.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/horrors/poison/halloween.asp
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/horrors/mayhem/needles.asp




Thank you!
Good to see that there are at least some people who know that these are (odious) urban legends. I lost a lot of candy back in the old days...


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 1, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Couldn't we just ban children? I know we can all agree that children are the real problem.




Sure!
And why don't we ban reality while we are at it?
I mean, after all, reality causes hurt feelings and is unfair.
Obviously the only reasonable solution is to ban reality. (REDACTED) do it all the time anyway.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 1, 2013)

I could finally fly with the banning of reality!


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 1, 2013)

I know, right?
And you could be well hung too!
Just think of all the benefits for you goldo!


----------



## Klirshon (Nov 1, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> I know, right?
> And you could be well hung too!




With the banning of reality, he wouldn't even need the rope.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 1, 2013)

Janx said:


> As a I recall, the whole doctored candy scare was a myth.  There are zero incidents of anybody getting a Razor Blade Apple, or whatnot.
> 
> 
> And I do agree with you that regardless of correct terminology for negative/postive reinforcement, that handing out letters to fat kids instead of candy will very likely make the fat kid feel worse, not get better.
> ...




Meh, some people really don't know why they have the problems they do.  If the child was raised in a household that only served terrible food (for whatever reason - no judgement made) then that's probably all the child knows about nutrition.  The child, then, may well know he's fat but not know what to do about it.  Someone telling them to lay off the candy may be the first real bit of advice they have ever had and may well lead them down a different path.  

Sometimes people - even kids - need to be forced to face the painful truth.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 1, 2013)

There is a time & place for everything.  Informing the kid about nutrition on his next pediatric checkup or the like is entirely appropriate.  Singling him out when he's at the doorstep with his buddies on a night when everyone is having fun?  Uncool.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 1, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Sometimes people - even kids - need to be forced to face the painful truth.




If so, that should be undertaken by someone who knows the child (or person) in question, and knows the actual problem.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 1, 2013)

The actual problemis well documented. 

Why should you know the child?


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 1, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Why should you know the child?



Because he is a mod and he said so.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 1, 2013)

goldomark said:


> The actual problemis well documented.
> 
> Why should you know the child?




Because excessive weight gain is not exclusively linked to eating candy.

My Mom had a thyroid problem, for instance, that caused her to gain a lot of weight.  Both Jerry Lewis and Rush Limbaugh had weight gain linked to certain medications.

My personal weight gain was caused by overconsumption of calories and a corresponding lack of exercise, but candy had little to do with it.  Part of it was because of my salt-induced hypertension.  But candy?  I like it and eat it, but its a rare thing- I'm just now getting to the (standard sized) Toblerone I got for Chrismas 2012...and that's my favorite candy bar.  So far, I've eaten 1/3 of it.

So unless you know the kid, you don't know the problems.

Edit: plus, who is more likely to be effective at delivering the proper nutrition message, a "mean stranger" who embarrassed them or someone the kid knows & trusts?

Also, who is more likely to get TPed or pranked because of said message.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 1, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Sure!
> And why don't we ban reality while we are at it?
> I mean, after all, reality causes hurt feelings and is unfair.
> Obviously the only reasonable solution is to ban reality. (REDACTED) do it all the time anyway.



Best idea you've had so far. I totally approve.


----------



## Janx (Nov 1, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Because excessive weight gain is not exclusively linked to eating candy.
> 
> My Mom had a thyroid problem, for instance, that caused her to gain a lot of weight.  Both Jerry Lewis and Rush Limbaugh had weight gain linked to certain medications.
> 
> ...




Yup.  Not every fat kid is fat because they eat bad food or because they are lazy.

And the ones who are fat because of those "other" reasons they can't control seem to be doubly sensitive to jerkholes pointing out their condition and trying to tell them how to fix something they don't have any clue about.  Such fat people I've met in that situation already feel bad for being stuck that way, and then they get a heaping dose of superficial judgement by others assuming they are lazy and gluttonous as well.

_It is generally considered rude to inject your unasked for solution to a stranger's situation when you don't know the details of their problem and thus cannot verify your solution applies._

Unless you come from a culture where that italicized statement is not the societal norm, then that should be the end of the argument right there.

As such, a person who agrees with that rule should inherently get that "YOU DON"T KNOW WHY THE KID IS FAT, SO KEEP YOUR ADVICE TO YOURSELF."

It ain't rocket science, and anybody raised by in polite society should know it.

Everybody with a problem hates hearing from the peanut gallery on how to solve that problem with a solution that turns out to be based on incorrect assumptions.

Therefore confronting a stranger with potentially faulty advice is rude, antagonistic, quite possibly incorrect.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 1, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Best idea you've had so far. I totally approve.




See, we can be best buddies after all!


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 1, 2013)

Janx said:


> Therefore confronting a stranger with potentially faulty advice is rude, antagonistic, quite possibly incorrect.




That sounds exactly like modern (REDACTED)ism.


----------



## Janx (Nov 1, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Because he is a mod and he said so.




I don't know that that's called for.

You new guys bring good topics to the table.

But as a collective, I'm seeing more non-veiled political remarks, and jabs at the mods from you guys (not anybody in particular and in fact some of them have been banned)


Please tone it down.  Our EN culture isn't the same as WotC.  I like to think it's lasted because of that.


Umbran usually brings well thought out, balanced and diplomatic discussion to threads.  Sure, I have seen him not do so, and at other times, I have earned a warning from him as well.  But generally, he's a good discusser.

As a mod, I imagine that can put him at odds with people, but I think he does a decent job of keeping that separate.

I do not think it would be fair for our unpaid mods to not be allowed to participate just because they are mods.  That would in fact pretty much make visiting EN World an uncompensated chore.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 1, 2013)

Well, we have seen jabs at posters from Umbran concerning their intelligence and education, and calling them trolls. We have also seen condescending and adversarial attitude from him. 
And we tend to fight fire with fire.
*shrug*
Nobody is saying he shouldn't participate in discussions, but he doesn't have to be a dick when he does.


----------



## Janx (Nov 1, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Well, we have seen jabs at posters from Umbran concerning their intelligence and education, and calling them trolls. We have also seen condescending and adversarial attitude from him.
> And we tend to fight fire with fire.
> *shrug*
> Nobody is saying he shouldn't participate in discussions, but he doesn't have to be a dick when he does.




I can't say one way or another, I've only seen one recent thread where he was called out, but I didn't see anything I thought was extreme (I've seen like one or two times TOTAL in the last ten years where I thought Umbran was out of line).

He's usually pretty good, and I'm just asking that we ease up a bit, EVEN IF he or anybody else has mis-stepped.  

Because that keeps this kind of thing from escalating.  And around here, we seem to do a decent job of not ruining threads by going overboard.

Again, I ain't a mod.  I got nothing over any of you guys, new or not.  Just stating a concern over changes in what I been seeing for awhile.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 1, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> That sounds exactly like modern (REDACTED)ism.




Actually, it sounds like a linguistically updated version of what Ms. Manners might suggest.



> Normally, one does not go around offering unsolicited advice...




Ms. Manners, from a column about jabs for being skinny.

And here's one about advice to the obese.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...=gXszAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gvIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3145,72519

And on unsolicited advice in general:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ju...vice we have a strong volunteer force&f=false

So...not exactly "modern (REDACTED)ism".


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 1, 2013)

The funniest part is that you guys are making an incorrect assumption as to what [redacted]ism means


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 1, 2013)

I made no assumption- the comparison to Ms. Manners' position shows its not modern _anything_, but rather a very traditional formulation of proper manners.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 1, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Because excessive weight gain is not exclusively linked to eating candy.
> 
> My Mom had a thyroid problem, for instance, that caused her to gain a lot of weight.  Both Jerry Lewis and Rush Limbaugh had weight gain linked to certain medications.
> 
> ...



Being lazy and bad eating habits are not the only causes, that is true. That being said, odds are in countries like the US or Québec, that laziness and/or bad eating habits are the causes. 

It is a reasonable assumption to make. 



> Edit: plus, who is more likely to be effective at delivering the proper nutrition message, a "mean stranger" who embarrassed them or someone the kid knows & trusts?



The television is the correct answer. Umm... Well maybe the interwebz these days. The problem with those two is that they are sending the wrong message. Publicity is all about hedonism, consumption, laziness and indulging in bad food. 

As for mean, life is cruel and mean, kids need to learn it. What is the difference between that and a 91-0 loss at football?



> Also, who is more likely to get TPed or pranked because of said message.



Meh, in Québec we do not have that culture of bullism and vadalism.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 1, 2013)

> It is a reasonable assumption to make.




And still none of your business.  It's not your place to initiate that discussion with someone else's child.


> What is the difference between that and a 91-0 loss at football?




That again?  Answered in post #26.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 1, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And still none of your business.  It's not your place to initiate that discussion with someone else's child.



Why? No explanation has been given. This is an opinion that has been repeated as fact without actually rationalizing this opinion. 




> That again?  Answered in post #26.



And a poor answer. Life is not fair, like sports. People get singled out, people face cruel situations, why can't kids learn this? What people do not face enough is the truth being told to them, and maybe this is will harden the kids and educate them, like a trashing in a sports match.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 2, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I made no assumption- the comparison to Ms. Manners' position shows its not modern _anything_, but rather a very traditional formulation of proper manners.




Ha! You assumed I was referring to you!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 2, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Why? No explanation has been given. This is an opinion that has been repeated as fact without actually rationalizing this opinion.
> 
> 
> And a poor answer. Life is not fair, like sports. People get singled out, people face cruel situations, why can't kids learn this? What people do not face enough is the truth being told to them, and maybe this is will harden the kids and educate them, like a trashing in a sports match.



Clearly, we disagree fundamentally on many things.  I'll leave it at that.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 2, 2013)

goldomark said:


> And a poor answer. Life is not fair, like sports. People get singled out, people face cruel situations, why can't kids learn this? What people do not face enough is the truth being told to them, and maybe this is will harden the kids and educate them, like a trashing in a sports match.



Taking the approach that one would need to teach children that life isn't fair in a way that intentionally shames them and humiliates them only teaches that the person doing the teaching isn't the kind of person the children would or should want anything to do with. It also teaches acceptance of the status quo and the idea that one should use the same methods one was shamed with against the opposition in a harsher manner. 'Hardening' children in this manner creates personality disorders, not healthy adults.

And saying 'life isn't fair' as an argumentative response is facetious. It might be true, but it doesn't have to be. We should be trying to change it as much as possible, and we should be trying to teach that change is possible. The world being cruel is the situation, not an answer to why you should teach cruelty to continue that situation.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 2, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Why? No explanation has been given.




There's a simple one - if they are under 18 (or whatever the age of legal majority in the area) and you (generic, not you personally) are not their parent or guardian, then you are not responsible for their care.  In fact, your right to take part in their care is severely limited by law, and there are very few choices you get to make about what is best for them.  

Now, perhaps you disagree with the law - that discussion is beyond the purview of these boards.  But I think you seem to be very close to saying, "I know what is right for someone else's kid, and reserve the right to impose that when I personally feel it is appropriate." I think you'll find very few folks agreeing with that position.



> And a poor answer. Life is not fair, like sports. People get singled out, people face cruel situations, why can't kids learn this?




You misunderstand.  It isn't that kids cannot learn it.  It is that you (or other random strangers) don't have the right to manage their education.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 2, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Well, we have seen jabs at posters from Umbran concerning their intelligence and education, and calling them trolls. We have also seen condescending and adversarial attitude from him.




Interesting.  

A suggestion:  Next time you have a problem with someone (moderator or otherwise) don't go dragging it around thread-to-thread.  Take a moment to have a side conversation (we have a very nice Private Message system for it), to see if you can work out your differences, like mature adults.  



> And we tend to fight fire with fire.




And that is where you are making your biggest error.  If you'd care to learn why, do PM me, and we can discuss it.  

Whether you care to discuss it privately or not, the public spectacle ends here.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 2, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Clearly, we disagree fundamentally on many things.  I'll leave it at that.



I call coitus interruptus. /shakes head


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 2, 2013)

Umbran said:


> There's a simple one - if they are under 18 (or whatever the age of legal majority in the area) and you (generic, not you personally) are not their parent or guardian, then you are not responsible for their care.  In fact, your right to take part in their care is severely limited by law, and there are very few choices you get to make about what is best for them.



Are you saying that I cannot legally say anything to an individual that is under 18 years old in regards to his or her health? 



> Now, perhaps you disagree with the law



There is a law about giving information on Halloween?



> - that discussion is beyond the purview of these boards.



Why?  



> But I think you seem to be very close to saying, "I know what is right for someone else's kid, and reserve the right to impose that when I personally feel it is appropriate." I think you'll find very few folks agreeing with that position.



A mind reader, are you? Well no, that is not it. Try something else. 



> You misunderstand.



No, it would seem roles are reversed.



> It isn't that kids cannot learn it.  It is that you (or other random strangers) don't have the right to manage their education.



Why? Which right is this? Do you want to return to a conversation about rights? You mention rights a few times in your post. Cause that thread was closed.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 2, 2013)

jonesy said:


> And saying 'life isn't fair' as an argumentative response is facetious. It might be true, but it doesn't have to be. We should be trying to change it as much as possible, and we should be trying to teach that change is possible. The world being cruel is the situation, not an answer to why you should teach cruelty to continue that situation.



So, you think it is ok for that woman to teach kids about healthy dieting during Halloween? Cause dietery change is possible.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 2, 2013)

Who are you talking to? You posted the wrong quote. Or maybe you just didn't read what it said.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 2, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Are you saying that I cannot legally say anything to an individual that is under 18 years old in regards to his or her health?




No.  

You were told that it was not your business. That it wasn't your place to initiate that discussion with someone else's child.

You asked for an explanation why.  I offered an explanation - by the law and custom, raising that child is the business of the parents, legal guardians.  It is not your duty, business, or problem, so it is not for you to start that conversation.  There are some delegates (like schoolteachers, people who run after-school programs) who also have some authority, but even theirs is limited, and often debated.  As a basically random stranger, beyond noting potential abuse to authorities, you have very little say in the matter.



> A mind reader, are you?




What part of "I think you seem close to saying...." indicates mind reading?  No claim is made about your thoughts.  I reference only your words - what you are *saying*, not what you are *thinking*.



> Why?




Law and custom have defined it as such, at least in the USA.  Some things are for the parents or guardians of the child, not for you.  

Why are law and custom set up that way?  I could give a short answer, but then you could then ask why that answer was true.  It is possible to keep asking "why" nearly forever.  At some point, you reach the level of asking for more than a person can reasonably be expected to give in spare time on a hobby messageboard.  If you do not understand why the rearing of other people's children is not your personal business, I suggest you go to your local child welfare agency, or a lawyer who specializes in parental rights, and ask them.  They are better prepared to answer the question than I.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 2, 2013)

Umbran said:


> But I think you seem to be very close to saying, "I know what is right for someone else's kid, and reserve the right to impose that when I personally feel it is appropriate."




That's exactly what he is doing.
He's a progressive.


----------



## Janx (Nov 2, 2013)

goldomark said:


> As for mean, life is cruel and mean, kids need to learn it. What is the difference between that and a 91-0 loss at football?
> 
> Meh, in Québec we do not have that culture of bullism and vadalism.





The difference is that a parent authorized his kid to play on a crappy football team (and potentially even knew his kid sucked at sports), and that the trouncing occurred under the parents unwitting/incompetent authorization.


A stranger walking up and saying anything to my kid that upsets her is at risk of lawsuit, sexual predation charges, a severe beating, or a .308 round fired at 1000m.  Any of which are the parents potential reaction.

Law or not, strangers have zero expectation of safety in interacting with another person's kid.

So, in knowing that a parent is going to go ballistic on you if you told their figurative child that he/she was fat, are you REALLY going to risk it?

If you answer yes, isn't that the definition of trolling?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 2, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> He's a progressive.





Did you miss the fact that EN World has a "no politics" rule?  

This commentary was inappropriate for this site.  Please take to to some place (like, say Circvs Maximvs), where they encourage and enjoy it.

Personally, I expect CM would chew you up and spit you out, but maybe I'm wrong.  If I am wrong, you might find you like the style there a lot more than on EN World.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 2, 2013)

tee hee


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 2, 2013)

Tee hee confirmed.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 2, 2013)

jonesy said:


> Who are you talking to? You posted the wrong quote. Or maybe you just didn't read what it said.



It is a quote from your post. I read it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 2, 2013)

Janx said:


> The difference is that a parent authorized his kid to play on a crappy football team (and potentially even knew his kid sucked at sports), and that the trouncing occurred under the parents unwitting/incompetent authorization.



During Halloween parents accept that their kids go to strange people's house and beg for stuff. They shouldn't be mad when someone gives them something. There is not obligation to give out candy.




> A stranger walking up and saying anything to my kid that upsets her is at risk of lawsuit, sexual predation charges, a severe beating, or a .308 round fired at 1000m.  Any of which are the parents potential reaction.



And a lot of those will land you in jail. As for a law suit and false accusation are, well frivolous and false. Making threats on other hand is serious stuff that cna land you in jail.



> Law or not, strangers have zero expectation of safety in interacting with another person's kid.



Actually, they can expect safety. And I am not even sure why are talking about safety. It wasn't mentioned anywhere.



> So, in knowing that a parent is going to go ballistic on you if you told their figurative child that he/she was fat, are you REALLY going to risk it?



The real question is: would you risk prison for that?



> If you answer yes, isn't that the definition of trolling?



People think that when someone has a different opinion than them it is trolling. I think they should just accept that people have different opinions instead of getting upset and make various threats.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 2, 2013)

Umbran said:


> No.
> 
> You were told that it was not your business. That it wasn't your place to initiate that discussion with someone else's child.
> 
> You asked for an explanation why.  I offered an explanation - by the law and custom, raising that child is the business of the parents, legal guardians.  It is not your duty, business, or problem, so it is not for you to start that conversation.  There are some delegates (like schoolteachers, people who run after-school programs) who also have some authority, but even theirs is limited, and often debated.  As a basically random stranger, beyond noting potential abuse to authorities, you have very little say in the matter.



That person is free to do it, there is nothing preventing her from doing it, and the message is a the right one. If parents do not want kids to get that message, don't let their kids go knock on stranger's doors begging for stuff, cause they might get stuff that they do not like. Such is life.



> What part of "I think you seem close to saying...." indicates mind reading?  No claim is made about your thoughts.  I reference only your words - what you are *saying*, not what you are *thinking*.



A metaphore, but basically your focusing on that instead of the message that was "nope, that is not my intention". /shrug





> Law and custom have defined it as such, at least in the USA.  Some things are for the parents or guardians of the child, not for you.



There is no law against what the woman is doing. Invoking law is a moot point. As for customs, you have adults telling kids, that aren't theirs, what is right or wrong all the time in public places. Like lower your voice, stop running, pick up that trash, etc. Dietery advice might be new (probably not that much, adults telling kdis they'll spoil their appetites is frequent), but it doesn't mean it should be done. 



> Why are law and custom set up that way?  I could give a short answer, but then you could then ask why that answer was true.



A futurologist, are we? 



> It is possible to keep asking "why" nearly forever.  At some point, you reach the level of asking for more than a person can reasonably be expected to give in spare time on a hobby messageboard.  If you do not understand why the rearing of other people's children is not your personal business, I suggest you go to your local child welfare agency, or a lawyer who specializes in parental rights, and ask them.  They are better prepared to answer the question than I.



No need to get over emotional, sheesh.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 2, 2013)

goldomark said:


> It is a quote from your post. I read it.



That's good. Now that you have read it you have the option of going back and responding to it, instead of pretending that the quote said something else.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 2, 2013)

> There is no law against what the woman is doing. Invoking law is a moot point.



There actually may be- the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress could apply.



> The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.




That her conduct is intentional, there is not a question.  The fourth element would be easily claimed & probably proven- the standard would be the civil "preponderance of evidence"- and causality would be pretty obviously demonstrated.  The main question would be proving the second element.

And since it is a community type question, the jury chosen would matter qreatly, and therein lies part of the skill of a trial attorney.

I'm an attorney, but not a trial specialist.  However, my own informal poll of parents has been unanimous: the behavior in question is "extreme and outrageous" to them.  Even the vast majority of non-parent adults have used terms like "bullying".*

Imagine if I were a trial attorney picking a jury...

Why?  See the answer that you thought was poor- she is overstepping her boundries.  The behavior she said she would do is well outside the norm for the holiday tradition wherein you give candy or treats or you don't give anything out at all, but you don't single kids out for ostracism. At least, not as an adult.

If she went through with her plan, I wouldn't be surprised to see her in an American court defending her actions...and losing.








* and remember, I live in the same area as the parent brought the lawsuit over the football game- he's not winning in the court of public opinion, BTW.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 3, 2013)

jonesy said:


> That's good. Now that you have read it you have the option of going back and responding to it, instead of pretending that the quote said something else.



If you do not like what I wrote I can't help it, like I can't help you being snarky and trying to avoid answering.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There actually may be- the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress could apply.
> 
> That her conduct is intentional, there is not a question.  The fourth element would be easily claimed & probably proven- the standard would be the civil "preponderance of evidence"- and causality would be pretty obviously demonstrated.  The main question would be proving the second element.
> 
> ...


----------



## jonesy (Nov 3, 2013)

goldomark said:


> If you do not like what I wrote I can't help it, like I can't help you being snarky and trying to avoid answering.



Heh.

I feel the old levels of snark rising up inside me.

Ahem. Here it comes:

Yes. You can. You can help me not like what you wrote, because what you wrote assumed I said something I did not, and so you did help in my dislike thereof. You also can help me be snarky and avoid answering anything you ask, and in fact you are doing so right now with the way you yourself are avoiding responding to what I actually said.



In a conversation you follow what the other person is saying and then you respond to it. You do not invent responses and then act like those happened. Quoting me and then playing it as a response to something different that I didn't say anything at all about is not a conversation, it is baiting and it is rude.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 3, 2013)

Cute.

But the tort has major cases-plaintiffs victories and losses- dating back to the 1950s.  No gymnastics needed, just black letter law.

I'm not saying its a slam-dunk case.  I'm not even saying such a case is guaranteed to occur.  I'm just saying the law is there, and  all that need happen to start the ball rolling is one crying child.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 3, 2013)

Umbran said:


> No.
> 
> You were told that it was not your business. That it wasn't your place to initiate that discussion with someone else's child.
> 
> You asked for an explanation why.  I offered an explanation - by the law and custom, raising that child is the business of the parents, legal guardians.  It is not your duty, business, or problem, so it is not for you to start that conversation.  There are some delegates (like schoolteachers, people who run after-school programs) who also have some authority, but even theirs is limited, and often debated.  As a basically random stranger, beyond noting potential abuse to authorities, you have very little say in the matter.



Generally speaking, you are correct; it is not the place of other people to initiate that discussion with the child nor the parent. That is, until the child goes over to a stranger's house begging for candy. The child can get some free candy, but they may have to listen to some "friendly" or "unfriendly" advice as part of the interaction they have with the person giving out the candy. If parents don't want their child to possibly have that type of interaction, they shouldn't send them to people's houses begging for candy. And yeah, it's not the stranger's place to raise the child, but the lady who is giving out the letters isn't really doing that. She is giving out a suggestion. It isn't as if she has some method of implementing whatever her letters say.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 3, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Generally speaking, you are correct; it is not the place of other people to initiate that discussion with the child nor the parent. That is, until the child goes over to a stranger's house begging for candy. The child can get some free candy, but they may have to listen to some "friendly" or "unfriendly" advice as part of the interaction they have with the person giving out the candy. If parents don't want their child to possibly have that type of interaction, they shouldn't send them to people's houses begging for candy. And yeah, it's not the stranger's place to raise the child, but the lady who is giving out the letters isn't really doing that. She is giving out a suggestion. It isn't as if she has some method of implementing whatever her letters say.



Orrrr...

The woman in question could have followed the rules of sociey & etiquette- see the above cites to Ms. Manners- and simply keep her anti-fat crusade to herself on Halloween and not participate in the giving of _any_ candy (or anything else).  No fat kids get poisoned, no fat kid gets humiliated.

That is perfectly acceptable.  There are people in our neighborhood who don't participate in the candy giveaway- for whatever reason*- and nobody cares that they don't.

Better angels, yada, yada, yada.









* concerns over candy & obesity, dental health, the holiday's pagan roots, or what have you.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Cute.



And true.



> But the tort has major cases-plaintiffs victories and losses- dating back to the 1950s.  No gymnastics needed, just black letter law.
> 
> I'm not saying its a slam-dunk case.  I'm not even saying such a case is guaranteed to occur.  I'm just saying the law is there, and  all that need happen to start the ball rolling is one crying child.



Oh, someone can definitely sue the woman and emotional distress cases have been won. I didn't mean that was not possible. Someone could want to sue her for being Satan too. But the chances these cases win or do not get thrown out right off the bat are laughable.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Orrrr...
> 
> The woman in question could have followed the rules of sociey & etiquette- see the above cites to Ms. Manners- and simply keep her anti-fat crusade to herself on Halloween and not participate in the giving of _any_ candy (or anything else).  No fat kids get poisoned, no fat kid gets humiliated.
> 
> ...



Why do you hate freedom and liberty? Why put pressure on her for doing what she wants in accordance to the law? After all we are talking about the US ) yeah!) here, not the USSR.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 3, 2013)

I love freedom and liberty, but recognize it also has its limits and demands corresponding duties to your fellow man in a functioning society.

Why do you hate civility and politeness?


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 3, 2013)

jonesy said:


> Heh.
> 
> I feel the old levels of snark rising up inside me.
> 
> ...



I usually invent my responses, as I do not quote or link that often when I give a response. 

As for your feeling of insatisfaction, you can always write something that betters reflects your thoughts and I could write another response. Maybe you'll find it more satisfactory.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I love freedom and liberty, but recognize it also has its limits and demands corresponding duties to your fellow man in a functioning society.
> 
> Why do you hate civility and politeness?



Those have no bearing on the case here. The lady's letter was both civil and polite. As for duty of Halloween, let me laugh. /laughs

This just asking conformity for conformity's sake. Because you do not like what she is doing. And it really is just a double standard when you think about it. In a similar case of feelings getting hurt (football match ending 91-0) you had no problem with it and defended it.

The woman has all the right to do what she did in a liberal democracy. What is wrong in a liberal democracy is bullying and intimidation, like some people in this thread suggested should happen. Unless you find those to be civil, polite and a duty?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 3, 2013)

> The lady's letter was both civil and polite.



It was neither, according to the standards proffered by Ms. Manners, and I'll take her view on matters like these more seriously than yours, based in what I've read of the writings of the two of you.



> What is wrong in a liberal democracy is bullying and intimidation...




As stated above, I've yet to encounter a parent in this area who thought that these letters were anything but bullying.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Orrrr...
> 
> The woman in question could have followed the rules of sociey & etiquette- see the above cites to Ms. Manners- and simply keep her anti-fat crusade to herself on Halloween and not participate in the giving of _any_ candy (or anything else).  No fat kids get poisoned, no fat kid gets humiliated.
> 
> ...



Sure, she could have done that, but there is no requirement that she does it. If a pair of Mormon missionaries knock on your door, you could open the door and be polite to them (invite them in or say no thank you), or you could just say "What the f do you want?" If some kid goes to her house begging for candy, she can give them candy, give them nothing, or give them the letter. It's her choice what she does. It may not be the kosher thing to do, but it's her choice. 

Sure, there are other ways in which she can express her concern about obesity in children, like your neighbors who don't participate in the candy giveaway, but it's her choice how she expresses her thoughts on that. I mean, it's not as if she is going out of her way to find fat kids to five these letters to. She isn't walking around the streets looking for fat kids to give this to. She is giving it to kids who show up at her door.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 3, 2013)

> She is giving it to kids who show up at her door.




...in full view of the other children, in a breach of the expectations of the holiday celebration.

My guess is she's already "popular" in the neighborhood, though.  Misanthropy like this doesn't manifest itself only once per year.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...in full view of the other children, in a breach of the expectations of the holiday celebration.



So what? There are times when you will be humiliated in front of other people. Also, it's not as if fat people don't get humiliated in front of their friends, co-workers, family members, and complete strangers. The kid learns a lesson, and they'll be able to handle things in the future. Also, it's not as if this lady is reading the letter to the kid and his friends at her door.


> My guess is she's already "popular" in the neighborhood, though.  Misanthropy like this doesn't manifest itself only once per year.



Very true, which means that you already know the type of person you are sending your kids to go interact with when you let them knock on her door. You should have a pretty good idea of what to expect.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 3, 2013)

> So what?




People do get humiliated in all kinds of situations, and lif will provide them.  Which means there's not much point in doing so intentionally unless you've got a sadistic streak.

She's just illustrating one of my favorite maxims: "There's no situation so bad that people can't make it worse."


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> People do get humiliated in all kinds of situations.  Which means there's not much point in doing so intentionally unless you've got a sadistic streak.



You're assuming her intent is to humiliate them. As I mentioned previously in my conversation with Umbran, that isn't always the result. Some kids may find the letter to be aversive. Others may not. They may or may not follow the advice she is giving them in the letter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 3, 2013)

> You're assuming her intent is to humiliate them.




No, all I'm assuming is that she has the intent to distribute said letters- that someone will be humiliated is a reasonably foreseeable consequence.


----------



## Janx (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It was neither, according to the standards proffered by Ms. Manners, and I'll take her view on matters like these more seriously than yours, based in what I've read of the writings of the two of you.
> 
> 
> 
> As stated above, I've yet to encounter a parent in this area who thought that these letters were anything but bullying.




As the old saying goes, "Don't mess with mama bear's cubs"

If a large chunk of the population thinks they wouldn't like it if their kid got one of those letters, whats the percent chance one of those people will be rich or crazy enough to react in one of the extreme ways I outlined.

I think this is one of those areas where the woman may have a RIGHT to hand out those letters, but that doesn't make it right to do so, nor does it make it a good idea to do so.

If her goal is to induce positive change in obese children, championing fitness and diet improvements in school lunches, after school activities for at-risk childern etc would seem to be more positive and more likely to be successful.

Versus doing a bait and switch at the door by advertising she's putting out for Halloween, but then Grinching on some of the customers.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It was neither, according to the standards proffered by Ms. Manners, and I'll take her view on matters like these more seriously than yours, based in what I've read of the writings of the two of you.



Ad hominem. That is not a argument.



> As stated above, I've yet to encounter a parent in this area who thought that these letters were anything but bullying.



An appeal to popularity, again, not an argument.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 3, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Ad hominem. That is not a argument.



That's not ad hominem.  I am merely pointing out that I'm going to prefer the position of a known and accepted expert advisor on matters of civility and etiquette based on her writings and what I have seen of yours.  She's an expert; you have offered no proof that you are.

And before you go "appeal to authority", it is only a logical fallacy if the source appealed to is not an actual authority.


> An appeal to popularity, again, not an argument.




Not an appeal to popularity, it's my observation and informed assessment as a professional attorney- I wouldn't want to accept her case if she came to me, partly because I don't think she'd fare that well.  (That, plus i'm not a trial attorney.)  And besides, we are talking about behavior that is arguably a breach of a social norm, so there is an element of "popularity" that is going to be part of the discussion.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, all I'm assuming is that she has the intent to distribute said letters- that someone will be humiliated is a reasonably foreseeable consequence.



true, but that foreseeable consequence applies to a lot of things kids do. For example, when the school they attend send their report cards, our when the teacher announces the class grades for a test how about when colleges and rejection letters? Ask those things have the potential to someone.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 3, 2013)

Of my 4 grandparents and my mom- all teachers ranging from elementary to grad school- none was in the habit of distributing grades while announcing names.  Nor were any of my teachers.

The only kids who got singled out did so by their own actions, like the 2 who bickered over which got a D- and which got an F, when only 2 tests had not been returned, and neither had a name on it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's not ad hominem.  I am merely pointing out that I'm going to prefer the position of a known and accepted expert advisor on matters of civility and etiquette based on her writings and what I have seen of yours.  She's an expert; you have offered no proof that you are.



You're attacking my credibility without adressing the substance of my argument. This is an ad hominem.



> And before you go "appeal to authority", it is only a logical fallacy if the source appealed to is not an actual authority.



Not exactly. What you said is true, but not complete. Authorities are not necessarely correct when they talk about their field of expertise and that also constitutes an appeal to authority.




> it's my observation



that many people believe this. Yup, appeal to popularity. 



> and informed assessment as a professional attorney-



Lol, now you're making an appeal to authority (see above)!



> And besides, we are talking about behavior that is arguably a breach of a social norm, so there is an element of "popularity" that is going to be part of the discussion.



You can't have it both ways, either it is an appeal to popularity or it is not. 

Once you decide, we can go back to the actual debate and you can start defending harassment of that woman for being an evil sadist again.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Of my 4 grandparents and my mom- all teachers ranging from elementary to grad school- none was in the habit of distributing grades while announcing names.  Nor were any of my teachers.



Right, and this lady isn't announcing what the letter says, nor is she telling the kids they are fat. She is simply giving them a letter to read on their own or give to their parents. 


> The only kids who got singled out did so by their own actions, like the 2 who bickered over which got a D- and which got an F, when only 2 tests had not been returned, and neither had a name on it.



Well there you go. The only way people are going to know what the letter says unless they start reading it for others to hear.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 3, 2013)

> Right, and this lady isn't announcing what the letter says




1) she did- it's in the news.

2) it will also be immediately obvious that some kids are getting candy and others are not.


> nor is she telling the kids they are fat



Sure she is- she's just doing it in print and by her actions rather than verbally.


> You're attacking my credibility without adressing the substance of my argument. This is an ad hominem.




No, it isn't- its not a personal attack at all.

I'm stating that I'm more likely to believe a noted and trusted authority- who has spoken directly on the issue of unsolicited advice- rather than some anonymous person on the Internet with no apparent bona fides and who has made no attempt to offer any.

I would make a similar assessment if we were discussing your view of astrophysics vs Stephen Hawking's.



> Not exactly. What you said is true, but not complete. Authorities are not necessarely correct when they talk about their field of expertise and that also constitutes an appeal to authority.



I didn't say you were flat-out wrong, or that Ms. Manners is simply correct, just that I am going to opt for an interpretation that is being delivered by a recognized, mainstream expert.

While it is true that an authority is not necessarily correct within their field of expertise, here:

1) The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2) There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

Thus, there is no "appeal to authority" _fallacy_ being comitted.

It comes close to being so because social conventions are fluid, artificial constructs, so it is impossible to construct a logical syllogism involving them.  At best, we can make probabilistic predictions in this arena.



> now you're making an appeal to authority




Relying on my personal expertise- of which I have some nearly 17 years- isn't an appeal to authority.  It's based on known statistical probabilities within the relevant field.

Thus, it is a probabilistic assertion, not a fallacious appeal to authority.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 3, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, it isn't- its not a personal attack at all.
> 
> I'm stating that I'm more likely to believe a noted and trusted authority- who has spoken directly on the issue of unsolicited advice- rather than some anonymous person on the Internet with no apparent bona fides and who has made no attempt to offer any.
> 
> I would make a similar assessment if we were discussing your view of astrophysics vs Stephen Hawking's.



But I'm supposed to lend you credibility, oh anonymous stranger on the internet?

Also: 







> That's not ad hominem. I am merely pointing out that I'm going to prefer the position of a known and accepted expert advisor on matters of civility and etiquette based on her writings and _what I have seen of yours._



You are making a personal attack regarding my ethiquette and civility in my posts. It is pretty clear.



> I didn't say you were flat-out wrong, or that Ms. Manners is simply correct, just that I am going to opt for an interpretation that is being delivered by a recognized, mainstream expert.



Oh well, mainstream experts. That makes a world of a diffence. That certainly is not an appeal to authority. No sir. 



> While it is true that an authority is not necessarily correct within their field of expertise, here:
> 
> 1) The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
> 2) There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.
> ...



You mean aside from the lack of consensus (who else claims to be a lawyer in this thread?) and that, again, being an "expert" in itself doesn't mean you're right. You need to demonstrate that you are right with actual arguments, not just by refering to you supposed authority. So far that is the only thing you managed to do. 

Now that this sidetrack is over, go back to the lady giving letters and use your "expert skills" to demonstrate your points: that she needs to be harassed for excercising her rights and that harassment is civil and polite.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 3, 2013)

goldomark said:


> But I'm supposed to lend you credibility, oh anonymous stranger on the internet?




No.  I told you my preferred source of advice in his area- a known expert in the field who has spoken directly on the issue of the politeness of unsolicited persinal advice.

in contrast, you have offered no basis for your interpretation beyond your personal opinion.

That's it.



> Also: You are making a personal attack regarding my ethiquette and civility in my posts. It is pretty clear.




Again, no- all I said is that I'd trust her interpretation over yours.  That isn't personal.



> Oh well, mainstream experts. That makes a world of a diffence. That certainly is not an appeal to authority. No sir.



Not as a logical fallacy, no.



> You mean aside from the lack of consensus (who else claims to be a lawyer in this thread?) and that, again, being an "expert" in itself doesn't mean you're right. You need to demonstrate that you are right with actual arguments, not just by refering to you supposed authority. So far that is the only thing you managed to do.




Lets see...I have advised that you consider the tort of intentional infliction emotional distress, which is relevant in that we are discussing an event in our (litigious) society that involves an adult (intentionally) attacking the self-esteem of children with foreseeably probable results.

I have also pointed out that her behavior is outside of the social norm for the holliday AND oversteps societal norms of 3rd party parenting.  And that there was a far less confrontational and more acceptable method to avoid giving candy to fat kids.

None of which seemingly matters to you.



> Now that this sidetrack is over, go back to the lady giving letters and use your "expert skills" to demonstrate your points: that she needs to be harassed for excercising her rights and that harassment is civil and polite.




I said nothing of her "needing" to be harassed, nor that harassment is civil or polite.  I don't know where youre getting that.

However, her harassment is as foreseeable as that of a child being told by an adult stranger that they are too fat to have candy like all he other kids.

Ditto a lawsuit under that tort if she followed through on her stated intended actions.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 4, 2013)

*Sexual seduction*



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I said nothing of her "needing" to be harassed, nor that harassment is civil or polite.  I don't know where youre getting that.



With the type of comment demonstrated below a few times already, the condemning of the woman's behavior and the defense/rationalizing of frivolous lawsuits as opposed to defending her rights to actually do what she did. Althought, I admit, "need" might be exagerated. Condone would be more accurate.



> However, her harassment is as foreseeable as that of a child being told by an adult stranger that they are too fat to have candy like all he other kids.



If you put the same energy you did to condemn that harassment as you put to condemn that woman, you would be credible. You talk a lot about cilivity and politeness, yet only one sides seems to get your disapproval.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 4, 2013)

goldomark said:


> condemning of the woman's behavior ... her rights to actually do what she did.




Just to reiterate a point that I posted earlier, but seems to have been overlooked: there was no woman actually handing out the letter.  It was reported before Halloween that the call was a hoax from a woman who has previously called in fake controversies to a morning comedy show.  And despite the press that the story got, there have been no reports of anyone actually receiving the letter.

You are defending actions that did not happen, and were never intended to happen. You are defending a joke that was made up for the sole purpose of sounding ridiculous.  In the internet vernacular: you got trolled.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 4, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> Just to reiterate a point that I posted earlier, but seems to have been overlooked: there was no woman actually handing out the letter.  It was reported before Halloween that the call was a hoax from a woman who has previously called in fake controversies to a morning comedy show.  And despite the press that the story got, there have been no reports of anyone actually receiving the letter.
> 
> You are defending actions that did not happen, and were never intended to happen. You are defending a joke that was made up for the sole purpose of sounding ridiculous.  In the internet vernacular: you got trolled.



Isn't it more like the people who got upset over this and are condemning her actions are the ones that got trolled?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 4, 2013)

goldomark said:


> With the type of comment demonstrated below a few times already, the condemning of the woman's behavior and the defense/rationalizing of frivolous lawsuits as opposed to defending her rights to actually do what she did. Althought, I admit, "need" might be exagerated. Condone would be more accurate.




Deset Gled's twice-posted, onced missed correction- sorry DG- notwithstanding, such actions are potentially within the person's right to free speech (actual or symbolic)- with the possible exception of the tort mentioned above- but in *no* jurisdiction does the right to free speech equal a right to speak _without consequence._

Her actions couldn't be stopped by, say...a policeman or other agent of the government.  But it is entirely predictable and possibly legal that hurtful acts as described in the hoax could be answered by similarly hurtful acts- social ostracism, ugly language directed at her, a refusal of service in businesses who sided with the kids, etc.- or even a lawsuit.  (See below.)


> If you put the same energy you did to condemn that harassment as you put to condemn that woman, you would be credible. You talk a lot about cilivity and politeness, yet only one sides seems to get your disapproval.




I condoned neither the harassment of the children nor he harassment of the fictional curmudgeon, merely pointed out that:

1) the consequences in both cases were forseeable, and

2) the former, at the very least, could be actionable under a known and established tort.

Whether harassing a woman for acting in the way proposed in the hoax was actionable- and the threat or filing of a lawsuit is not inherently harassment*- would depend on the nature of the reaction.  And, up until now, the threat of a lawsuit was the only reaction specifically enumerated.











* there would have to be an utter lack of merit in the filing and/or a pattern of threats of litigation or other acts for the threat of a lawsuit to rise to the level of harassment in any legal sense.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 4, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> but in *no* jurisdiction does the right to free speech equal a right to speak _without consequence._



Strawman/yawn 

I never said it was the case. You do like fallacus.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 4, 2013)

goldomark said:


> > Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
> > but in no jurisdiction does the right to free speech equal a right to speak without consequence.
> 
> 
> ...



Exhibit 1: Your own words.


> If you put the same energy you did to condemn that harassment as you put to condemn that woman, you would be credible. You talk a lot about cilivity and politeness, yet only one sides seems to get your disapproval.




There was no discussion of harassment of the woman, just one of the probability of her getting sued in civil court for distribution of the letters to fat kids.

Since a lawsuit in and of itself is not harassment, there was no need for me to defend or decry it, nor address the civility thereof.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 4, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Since a lawsuit in and of itself is not harassment, there was no need for me to defend or decry it, nor address the civility thereof.



Of course it can be be harassment.This is why we have laws against this. Of course, I am a very bad person and consider intimidation and such to be harassment.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 4, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Of course it can be be harassment.This is why we have laws against this. Of course, I am a very bad person and consider intimidation and such to be harassment.




I pointed out in post #134 the limited conditions under which a lawsuit can be considered harassment.  A tort lawsuit in response to an adults' actions that caused another person's child distress would not be a SLAPP.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 4, 2013)

Umbran said:


> If so, that should be undertaken by someone who knows the child (or person) in question, and knows the actual problem.




My point was that those people may have failed to do so.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 4, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> Just to reiterate a point that I posted earlier, but seems to have been overlooked: there was no woman actually handing out the letter.  It was reported before Halloween that the call was a hoax from a woman who has previously called in fake controversies to a morning comedy show.  And despite the press that the story got, there have been no reports of anyone actually receiving the letter.
> 
> You are defending actions that did not happen, and were never intended to happen. You are defending a joke that was made up for the sole purpose of sounding ridiculous.  In the internet vernacular: you got trolled.




Umm ... no.  Discussing a hypothetical situation is not the same as being trolled.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 4, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I pointed out in post #134 the limited conditions under which a lawsuit can be considered harassment.  A tort lawsuit in response to an adults' actions that caused another person's child distress would not be a SLAPP.



This is very much harassment. It would be a frivolous lawsuit made by someone who has his butt hurt and wants revenge by all means, not someone who was actually wronged.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 4, 2013)

goldomark said:


> This is very much harassment..




I'll spell it out for you (again): even though it may be stress-inducing, not every threat of a lawsuit is harassment.  Merely threatening or even filing a single lawsuit fails to meet the legal definition of harassment in every court system in which I've practiced or studied unless the underlying pleadings are without merit or there is evidence that it is part of a pattern of other behaviors deemed to be harassment.

We were discussing an allegation of intentional infliction of emotional distress in response to letters given to fat kids instead of candy while Trick-or-Treating.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.

On 1, there is no question in this hypothetical/hoax that the behavior in question was intentional or reckless.  The way it was framed makes that obvious.  Nor is there a meaningful question that the behavior was the cause of the emotional distress.  There is also no question that a parent in this situation would hope to win te case.

THAT gets you into court before a judge, and nullifies the legal argument that the suit is a SLAPP- a harassment lawsuit.

Then the claimants would have to prove that the distress was severe AND the respondent's actions were extreme and outrageous.  (Depending on the court and the respondent's motions, that would mean convincing a judge or jury.)

If that isn't good enough for you, well, might I suggest you take a formal class to study the workings & procedures of legal systems and stop playing on the Internet.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 4, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.
> 
> *On 1, there is no question in this hypothetical/hoax that the behavior in question was intentional or reckless*.  The way it was framed makes that obvious.  Nor is there a meaningful question that the behavior was the cause of the emotional distress.  There is also no question that a parent in this situation would hope to win te case.



I'm going to have to disagree there, counselor. How do prove that this behavior was reckless? Also, when you say "intentional," what is it that you are referring to as being "intentional?" The causing of emotional distress? It can be argued that her intuition wasn't to cause emotional distress, but rather to educate the parents and the child about eating habits. So you would need to prove that her intention was to cause emotional distress, wouldn't you? That it was caused does not mean that was the intention.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 4, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll spell it out for you (again): even though it may be stress-inducing, not every threat of a lawsuit is harassment.  Merely threatening or even filing a single lawsuit fails to meet the legal definition of harassment in every court system in which I've practiced or studied unless the underlying pleadings are without merit or there is evidence that it is part of a pattern of other behaviors deemed to be harassment.
> 
> We were discussing an allegation of intentional infliction of emotional distress in response to letters given to fat kids instead of candy while Trick-or-Treating.
> 
> ...



You're kidding right? Reckless, extreme and outrageous? That letter/behavior is none of the those. A lawyer that would claim that before a judge would lose a lot of credibility. 

And if a letter that says someone needs to take care of your weight causes _severe_ emotional distress, well I recommand eating a gallon of ice cream to deal with the pain, not a lawsuit to get revenge.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 4, 2013)

Maybe this all strikes a li'l too close to home for some members?  Seems there's some real emotional investment here.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 4, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I'm going to have to disagree there, counselor. How do prove that this behavior was reckless? Also, when you say "intentional," what is it that you are referring to as being "intentional?" The causing of emotional distress? It can be argued that her intuition wasn't to cause emotional distress, but rather to educate the parents and the child about eating habits. So you would need to prove that her intention was to cause emotional distress, wouldn't you? That it was caused does not mean that was the intention.




First, the tort is has an either/or formulation.  To file, one need only allege intent *or* reckessness, not both.

Under the law, reckessness is the state of mind accompanying an act that either pays no regard to its probably or possibly injurious consequences, or which, though foreseeing such consequences, persists in spite of such knowledge.

For intent, all that need be proven is that the defendant acted with the specific intent to perform (i.e. acted with a mental state of intentionally performing) the act which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.  The concept of 'intention' in the intentional torts does not require defendants to know that their acts will result in harm to the plaintiffs. Defendants must know only that their acts will result in certain consequences.

So, to proceed with a lawsuit under this tort, it is not required that anyone allege that the intent was to cause harm at all, merely that:

1) she intended to perform the act that caused the alleged injury,

Or 

2) she didn't contemplate that harm could result,

Or

3) she knew harm could result, but proceeded anyway.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 4, 2013)

goldomark said:


> You're kidding right? Reckless, extreme and outrageous? That letter/behavior is none of the those.




That is for a trier of fact- a judge or jury, depending- to decide.  IOW, that issue gets decided in court, not in pleadings.  Or in press conferences.

The good news for your position is that he burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

The bad news is that it's a "community standard" type assessment, and all that the plaintiff needs is a majority...if it were before a jury.

Which is why a defendant in a case like this might opt for a bench trial- no jury, just a judge sitting as trier of fact AND law.



> A lawyer that would claim that before a judge would lose a lot of credibility.



Nah, not really.

In every trial above the JP level, there are almost always 3 lawyers in the courtroom: one each representing a client, and the judge.  We all go through the same training, we all have experience in advocacy.

The result is that unless you suborn perjury, your colleagues will understand that you're just doing your job.

And I can guarantee you someone would take this case.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 4, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That is for a trier of fact- a judge or jury, depending- to decide.  IOW, that issue gets decided in court, not in pleadings.  Or in press conferences.
> 
> The good news for your position is that he burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
> 
> ...



There are all sort of shills in life, and plenty of them are lawyers, but I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying someone can't sue the woman because their butt hurts. I'm saying a judge will dismiss this frivalous case, like we dismiss a kid that is crying cause his brother told him he was poopie. Of course, we will never know cause this was a hoax of some sort.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I'm saying a judge will dismiss this frivalous case, like we dismiss a kid that is crying cause his brother told him he was poopie.



And what I'm telling you is that a judge _won't_ dismiss the case before trial because the fact pattern meets the criteria for pleadings for intentional torts.  The intentional conduct + upset child will get you to the point of conducting discovery and hearing testimony.  IOW, you act like the woman in the hoax and get sued, you WILL be spending money on attorneys and spending time in court.


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And what I'm telling you is that a judge _won't_ dismiss the case before trial because the fact pattern meets the criteria for pleadings for intentional torts.  The intentional conduct + upset child will get you to the point of conducting discovery and hearing testimony.  IOW, you act like the woman in the hoax and get sued, you WILL be spending money on attorneys and spending time in court.




Which shows that off all the stupid responses I can see somebody having to their kid being upset, sicking lawyers on the enemy seems to be the most effective.

Better Call Saul!


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 5, 2013)

One of my gamer friends had an interesting story.
Knock on the door.
Open door.
See another door with a sign on it saying "Knock and say 'trick-or-treat'."
When the victim does, the door opens, and a guy says "Happy Halloween! Have some candy!" and then started handing a fistful of candy.

So, Trick-or-Treat in reverse.

Seems this was a project put together by some former students now at SCU.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And what I'm telling you is that a judge _won't_ dismiss the case before trial because the fact pattern meets the criteria for pleadings for intentional torts.  The intentional conduct + upset child will get you to the point of conducting discovery and hearing testimony.  IOW, you act like the woman in the hoax and get sued, you WILL be spending money on attorneys and spending time in court.



Like I said, saying "your fat, lose weight" is not reckless, extreme or outrageous. It is a waist of the court's time and a judge would dismiss it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Like I said, saying "your fat, lose weight" is not reckless, extreme or outrageous. It is a waist of the court's time and a judge would dismiss it.




Say it all you want, that doesn't make it true.

Dismissal could happen.  But given the fact pattern offered, it is highly unlikely that it would be a _pre-trial_ dismissal because the legal elements of the tort- intentional act + causally linked injury- were adequately alleged.  That the alleged injury in question is emotional and not physical means its even less likely to be dismissed pre-trial.  The rest- as stated- would be a matter to be weighed by a trier of fact.  Far more likely than a pre-trial dismissal would be an order to go to ADR.  If that proved ineffective to satisfy both parties, then a hearing on the merits would start.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Say it all you want, that doesn't make it true.



Right back at you, champ.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Right back at you, champ.




Crucial difference: you're guessing, I'm not.

I'm speaking from 17 years of real world experience within my profession.  I know what legal pleadings look like because I've drafted them for civil and criminal courts.  I have actual understanding of why & when judges dismiss cases, and the reasons they don't.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Crucial difference: you're guessing, I'm not.
> 
> I'm speaking from 17 years of real world experience within my profession.  I know what legal pleadings look like because I've drafted them for civil and criminal courts.  I have actual understanding of why & when judges dismiss cases, and the reasons they don't.



Whoa there. You're some anonymous stanger on the internet. I know nothing of your credentials or competence. Heck, you say your a lawyer but it can all be a lie. Your opinion is as good as mine.


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Whoa there. You're some anonymous stanger on the internet. I know nothing of your credentials or competence. Heck, you say your a lawyer but it can all be a lie. Your opinion is as good as mine.




Actually, you and yer boys are the anonymous argumentative strangers on the internet.  Nobody knows who you are and you haven't established yourselves as reasonable or credible.  In fact some have already taken to putting all you guys on their ignore list.

DA's a forum regular who has consistently demonstrated his knowledge in legal matters over the last decade or so.

I don't know what yer goals are on this thread is.  But you'll score more points and respect by acknowledging other people's valid points and giving credit that some of the people actually know their stuff (like Danny's legal knowledge being greater than the average poster).

You may not care about what others think, but it's gonna be pretty lonely in here if everybody ignores you until the Mods finally kick y'all out for some infraction amongst yerselves.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 5, 2013)

Janx said:


> Actually, you and yer boys are the anonymous argumentative strangers on the internet.  Nobody knows who you are and you haven't established yourselves as reasonable or credible.  In fact some have already taken to putting all you guys on their ignore list.
> 
> DA's a forum regular who has consistently demonstrated his knowledge in legal matters over the last decade or so.
> 
> ...




Bait.
Not taken.
Try again.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

Janx said:


> Actually, you and yer boys are the anonymous argumentative strangers on the internet.  Nobody knows who you are and you haven't established yourselves as reasonable or credible.  In fact some have already taken to putting all you guys on their ignore list.
> 
> DA's a forum regular who has consistently demonstrated his knowledge in legal matters over the last decade or so.
> 
> ...




Wait ... _we're _the bad guys but you've all decided to organize in an effort to either get us to leave due to loneliness or through a coordinated effort of reporting until the mods decide to give us the boot?  That's what you call textbook harassment.  And if that's how ya'all roll, welll ... it's not anything new to us.  Trust me, we've seen it all before.  

Anyhoo, maybe before you go on calling a group of people you admittedly know nothing about troublemakers or whatever you should take a look at the 'good' people on this site and see how they behave.  If their response to new people is to ostracize and report, well, they're more like you think we are than we actually are.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 5, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Wait ... _we're _the bad guys but you've all decided to organize in an effort to either get us to leave due to loneliness or through a coordinated effort of reporting until the mods decide to give us the boot?  That's what you call textbook harassment.  And if that's how ya'all roll, welll ... it's not anything new to us.  Trust me, we've seen it all before.
> 
> Anyhoo, maybe before you go on calling a group of people you admittedly know nothing about troublemakers or whatever you should take a look at the 'good' people on this site and see how they behave.  If their response to new people is to ostracize and report, well, they're more like you think we are than we actually are.



QFT


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Whoa there. You're some anonymous stanger on the internet. I know nothing of your credentials or competence. Heck, you say your a lawyer but it can all be a lie. Your opinion is as good as mine.



Look this guy up:
texas state bar member 00796145

Then contact him if you will.


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Bait.
> Not taken.
> Try again.




That wasn't bait.  That was observation on y'alls little teehees as responses to Modding and that people have confided that they've started blocking you guys.

This forum does NOT work like WotC.  You guys are sticking out like an unwelcome third thumb.  And really, that's a shame.

If you think I was baiting you, then you guys might want to consider that you are interpreting things differently than the regular forum people.

I don't know how you guys should be.  I just feel that the current style of posting seems to be escalating things.  And it takes two sides to make a conversation get worse.  I'd rather the sides to a discussion not be drawn along new guys vs. old guys.

Good luck.  Honestly.


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Wait ... _we're _the bad guys but you've all decided to organize in an effort to either get us to leave due to loneliness or through a coordinated effort of reporting until the mods decide to give us the boot?  That's what you call textbook harassment.  And if that's how ya'all roll, welll ... it's not anything new to us.  Trust me, we've seen it all before.
> 
> Anyhoo, maybe before you go on calling a group of people you admittedly know nothing about troublemakers or whatever you should take a look at the 'good' people on this site and see how they behave.  If their response to new people is to ostracize and report, well, they're more like you think we are than we actually are.




I think the people blocking y'all have chosen not to participate. And once blocked, they don't see you anymore.  So those people aren't the ones reporting you.

I think it's sad that they decided to do that, but since it seems they did so based purely on reading your work, seems its all on your presentation.


I don't think there's a coordinated effort of reporting you guys.  At least I never got a memo on it.  Nobody's messaging me to do so.  I have no visibility into the EN machine, so I don't know who is reporting posts or at what frequency.  My only sense is by how many red Mod posts show up and who they are addressed to.

I do agree that some of the old guys could choose their words better as well, myself included.  The culture at EN World should be for all parties to seek to give people some credit when reading what they right. Sometimes we fail to do that.

I am sharing this because there is an us vs. them attitude forming.  How do we stop that?  Umbran's always going to be a know-it-all, and Danny's always going to be a lawyer.  Let's work with that, instead of against it.

I'm sorry for any part I've had in posting badly.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

Janx said:


> That wasn't bait.  That was observation on y'alls little teehees as responses to Modding and that people have confided that they've started blocking you guys.
> 
> This forum does NOT work like WotC.  You guys are sticking out like an unwelcome third thumb.  And really, that's a shame.
> 
> ...




Sorry to barge in but your post here brought a couple of things to mind:

First, telling people you're reporting or ignoring them _is _baiting.  You think you _won't _get a negative response when you tell someone you're purposefully treating them badly?  Additionally all you did in the post RH called bait was tell us how awful others think we are.  That's bait.

Second, I find it incredibly interesting that you decided to take RH's appraisal and tell him he's wrong because he interpreted things differently than other people do.  That's interesting because from what I've seen here that's pretty much exactly what ya'all are doing.  I don't know if you guys can't understand written sarcasm well or whatever but I've seen very, very obvious jokes taken dead serious by ya'all - whether out of ignorance or on purpose as an excuse to report, I don't know.  

Anyhoo, this is a learning experience for everyone - we're learning your rules and you're learning our personality.  Trust me, we've been behaving.  If you think we're trying to be disruptive you know even less about us than you think.  We're very happy that Morrus and some others let us come here after WotC did what they did - I mean that.  Give it some time and you'll get used to us and we'll get used to you.

Where we came from was, admittedly, a strange, strange place.  So strange, in fact, that I wrote a rather long introductory thread that was stickied and, likely, still is.  In it I explained the customs of the forum we frequented most and our habits.  I sometimes forget that we don't have that sort of thing to point to here - and we shouldn't because we _are _new.  Anyhoo, we're oddballs and we do act differently.  If that's something you can't handle the best thing probably would be to ignore us.  I really couldn't care less.  But if you give us a chance I think you'll see we're really harmless and quite a lot of fun to have around.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

Janx said:


> I think the people blocking y'all have chosen not to participate. And once blocked, they don't see you anymore.  So those people aren't the ones reporting you.
> 
> I think it's sad that they decided to do that, but since it seems they did so based purely on reading your work, seems its all on your presentation.
> 
> ...




I appreciate the response here.  I think I touched on the overall vibe well enough in my last post (written while you were writing this) but I'll say a few things here, too:

When in doubt, ask a question.  As I stated earlier I've seen several examples of what I consider obvious sarcasm or jokes taken literally and then responded to as though they were serious - just the other day someone made a joke and was mod warned over it.  A week or so ago I had a post that was very, very obviously a joke taken seriously and responded to that way (though with other goings on that day I suspect it was an effort to bait me into an argument that, by design, I couldn't win ... like I said, though, we've literally seen every tactic imaginable used against us).  So maybe if you're (general) not sure, ask?  And maybe we should make an effort to be clear - at least for a while - that we're joking when we are.  

I don't care if someone ignores me so that works, too.  Go ahead and click the link if that's what ya gotta do - you won't be the first or last.  My PM box is also open and I'm more than willing to discuss things in private.  Got a problem with 'one of us' or whatever?  Send a PM.  I guess what I'm saying here is that the forums seem clique-y as all hell and only a few of you are making any effort at all to let us in.  If that's how it's gotta be, so be it.  What-evs.  But it's not because of us.  I have received _two _PMs since I've been here - one from Morrus that I believe is an auto-generated welcome and a response from him about something I PMd him about.  No effort has been made from peeps on 'your side' regarding talking to me about how I present myself.  None.  I don't have a problem with ya'all, ya'all have a problem with me.  Why not talk about it?  To me, it's better than just ignoring peeps and telling others to do the same but, again, ignore if you must.  All I'm saying is don't put that decision on me if you've never even bothered to get my side of things.

I'm honestly curious why the peeps that chose to ignore did, though.  We aren't here to troll ya'all and that's a fact.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 5, 2013)

That is about enough of that.

Folks, we have said this time and time again.  Allow me to make it really big, so you can't miss it:

*DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL*

If you have to start questioning people's honesty to make your point, it is time to stop discussing the matter.

If you feel a need to start slinging insults at other groups of posters, it is likewise time to step away from the conversation.

This thread is closed.  If we see this dynamic developing again in the near future, folks can expect to be given vacations from the site.


----------

