Attorney David Schorr slapped a court-appointed shrink with a defamation lawsuit for telling the judge deciding a custody battle with his estranged wife that he was an unfit parent — for refusing to take his son to the fast food joint for dinner.
You have got to be shitting, the guy probably saved his son from a life of inactivity, obesity, and an early death. He should be applauded for not poisoning his child rather than vilified by some demented femnazi lawyer who thinks parenting stops when the test tube is cleaned.
We already had this, I thought. As somebody pointed out tho, there may be more to the story - maybe the shrink saying the dad was not fit had a lot more to go on, that we don't hear about. Note we're only getting dad's side of this story.
for instance:
She recently filed motions asking the judge to punish her husband for flouting court orders and for a judgment on nonpayment of child support.
On the face of it, of course it's nuts. If the facts are as represented here, let's hope the judge has the good sense not to be swayed by the shrink.
"Freakinoldguy" said You have got to be shitting, the guy probably saved his son from a life of inactivity, obesity, and an early death. He should be applauded for not poisoning his child rather than vilified by some demented femnazi lawyer who thinks parenting stops when the test tube is cleaned.
There has to be more to it. I can't see it being PC motivated. This is the kind of thing right and left would agree on, although for different reasons. With the left hating junk food and the right hating anybody interfering with parenting decisions I think we can all agree with the dad's actions in this case. Except the Mcdonald's lawyers who are, nno doubt, preparing their defamation suits as we speak.
"Freakinoldguy" said You have got to be shitting, the guy probably saved his son from a life of inactivity, obesity, and an early death. He should be applauded for not poisoning his child rather than vilified by some demented femnazi lawyer who thinks parenting stops when the test tube is cleaned.
"Unsound" said There has to be more to it. I can't see it being PC motivated. This is the kind of thing right and left would agree on, although for different reasons. With the left hating junk food and the right hating anybody interfering with parenting decisions I think we can all agree with the dad's actions in this case. Except the Mcdonald's lawyers who are, nno doubt, preparing their defamation suits as we speak.
It's not PC motivated. It's motivated by a vindictive (soon to be ex) wife.
"OnTheIce" said You have got to be shitting, the guy probably saved his son from a life of inactivity, obesity, and an early death. He should be applauded for not poisoning his child rather than vilified by some demented femnazi lawyer who thinks parenting stops when the test tube is cleaned.
A little over-the-top, no?
Yeah. That whole inactivity thing can't be blamed on Mcdonalds. XBox has more to do with that.
The headline is sensational, true to NY Post, but the story suggests to me that there is more to it. Right or wrong, my guess is the dad is being faulted for not feeding the kid at all. Maybe its true that the kid is so stubborn that it would have been impoassible to get him to eat anything else. If he had sent the kid home with take-out from the local cafe or wherever else was acceptable he might not be in hot water.
The child was given a choice....children need to start learning about consequences for the choices they make, and missing one meal isn`t going to harm a child unless they are diabetic. I remember being sent to bed without supper for bad behaviour a couple times. I woke up hungry, but with a better attitude. The failure to provide child support is what I`d like to know more about.
"BeaverFever" said The headline is sensational, true to NY Post, but the story suggests to me that there is more to it. Right or wrong, my guess is the dad is being faulted for not feeding the kid at all. Maybe its true that the kid is so stubborn that it would have been impoassible to get him to eat anything else. If he had sent the kid home with take-out from the local cafe or wherever else was acceptable he might not be in hot water.
You never got the "eat your supper or go to bed hungry" treatment?
for instance:
On the face of it, of course it's nuts. If the facts are as represented here, let's hope the judge has the good sense not to be swayed by the shrink.
You have got to be shitting, the guy probably saved his son from a life of inactivity, obesity, and an early death. He should be applauded for not poisoning his child rather than vilified by some demented femnazi lawyer who thinks parenting stops when the test tube is cleaned.
This is so F twisted it must be true.
Makes just about as much sense.
Dad might as well argue that Mom's the unfit parent for taking him to McDonalds.
Makes just about as much sense.
Depending on the frequency of McDonald's visits, it might even make more sense
You have got to be shitting, the guy probably saved his son from a life of inactivity, obesity, and an early death. He should be applauded for not poisoning his child rather than vilified by some demented femnazi lawyer who thinks parenting stops when the test tube is cleaned.
A little over-the-top, no?
There has to be more to it. I can't see it being PC motivated. This is the kind of thing right and left would agree on, although for different reasons. With the left hating junk food and the right hating anybody interfering with parenting decisions I think we can all agree with the dad's actions in this case. Except the Mcdonald's lawyers who are, nno doubt, preparing their defamation suits as we speak.
It's not PC motivated. It's motivated by a vindictive (soon to be ex) wife.
You have got to be shitting, the guy probably saved his son from a life of inactivity, obesity, and an early death. He should be applauded for not poisoning his child rather than vilified by some demented femnazi lawyer who thinks parenting stops when the test tube is cleaned.
A little over-the-top, no?
Yeah. That whole inactivity thing can't be blamed on Mcdonalds. XBox has more to do with that.
The headline is sensational, true to NY Post, but the story suggests to me that there is more to it. Right or wrong, my guess is the dad is being faulted for not feeding the kid at all. Maybe its true that the kid is so stubborn that it would have been impoassible to get him to eat anything else. If he had sent the kid home with take-out from the local cafe or wherever else was acceptable he might not be in hot water.
You never got the "eat your supper or go to bed hungry" treatment?