: She's thinking "I love my children and want them to be happy.": But she satiates their need responsibly.
I submit that there is indeed at least SOME kind "bizarre conformity" going on here. She calls this food "junk", says its not good for you, then says she takes her kids their to eat anyway. If you don't see anything inherently wrong with this then I can recommend a few good psychiatrists for both of you. Why should it ever be necessary to feed "junk" that's "not good for you" to your children unless there is no other alternative? I just don't get it. Please enlighten me. Because her kids WANT to eat it? So what. How does that justify doing something she admits is bad for them? Kids (especially younger ones) left to their own devices would frequently chose to do things that might be bad for them, that's why they have these things called parents. What kind of irresponsible wacko would, as a matter of routine, assist their child in doing something bad for them simply because the child wants to? How would her refusal to participate in feeding her children "junk" that's "bad for them" make her a "monster"? I thought a monster was someone that raped and beat you, not someone who didn't want to feed you "junk" because they think its bad for you. And what do you mean "satiates their need responsibly"? What "need"? When does someone "need" to eat junk specifically (if non-junk is accessable)? THAT'S a little "bizarre" isn't it? The only excuse she provides for knowingly doing something bad for her kids is that lots of bad things are happening to them anyway. That's gotta be the lamest thing I've ever heard in my life; the product of an undeveloped sense of her own reality and unattended emotional immaturety in addition to being deeply and misguidedly conformist. Uncommon? No. But "bizarre"? Yeah, I think that kind of reasoning, if we can call it that, is bizarre, maybe even a little "sick". And, quite frankly, its rather depressing for me to have to even explain such a thing. I hope I'm making sense to you.
None.
