The Progressive Movement - A political history lesson

[patches70]

I don't really understand this one. The kids getting free lunches are boycotting the free lunches? I can understand why they may be upset at the smaller portions, but if their family is actually so poor that they've qualified for free lunches, the odds are at least decent that this is STILL their best meal of the day.

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- "Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"

And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.

And, I would like to add, Woodruff, that if The State want's to provide free lunches to poor families, then do so. But it should not be dependent at all on if other students purchase school lunches or not. The implication of the school official is that if these boycotts continue it could put the lunch subsidy at risk. This is complete BS and is is called coercive persuasion which is very unethical and immoral. I would like to think you would agree with that.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't really understand this one. The kids getting free lunches are boycotting the free lunches? I can understand why they may be upset at the smaller portions, but if their family is actually so poor that they've qualified for free lunches, the odds are at least decent that this is STILL their best meal of the day.

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- "Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"

And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.

Except, who is coercing whom and why?

The poor kids have not had the option of better lunches for some time now. They are pretty well stuck eating unhealthy foods..and, for a lifetime, get used to eating those foods. My son was introduced to "eggo" type waffles, french toast sticks and other "wonderful" "foods" when he bought his meals at school. He still buys his lunch, but not his breakfasts. Its a compromise, but he felt funny bringing his own lunch.

The real "coersion" has been school cafeterias and administrations caring more about cutting costs than giving the kids a healthy and tasty lifetime example of the kinds of meals they should eat.

[PLAYER57832]

Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.

And this so clearly shows the whole problem in the progressive movement. Where are the experts? Who are the experts? What exactly are they expert at? .

Since you are unclear, here is a definition for you:

definition of expert by the Free Online Dictionary ...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/expertex·pert (k spûrt) n. 1. A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject. \

See, most people think actually having knowledge of a subject gives you more credibility than people who just spout off opinions.even if those opinions are based on the US constitution

[Symmetry]

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, "Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"
And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.

Essentially you're bullshitting. I've read your post three times and oddly enough it makes less sense each time.

[Night Strike]

The REAL truth is that some school districts have decided cutting portions in draconian ways is easier than actually providing more healthy, lower fat alternatives in ways that kids might eat them.

Actually, the REAL truth is that calorie limits have been dictated by the federal government, not by "some school districts".

[PLAYER57832]

The REAL truth is that some school districts have decided cutting portions in draconian ways is easier than actually providing more healthy, lower fat alternatives in ways that kids might eat them.

Actually, the REAL truth is that calorie limits have been dictated by the federal government, not by "some school districts".

And giving smaller breaded, formed chicken "patties" is much easier than adding a salad bar.
But.. a salad bar will do the same thing without portions being cut, so.. no.

[Night Strike]

The REAL truth is that some school districts have decided cutting portions in draconian ways is easier than actually providing more healthy, lower fat alternatives in ways that kids might eat them.

Actually, the REAL truth is that calorie limits have been dictated by the federal government, not by "some school districts".

And giving smaller breaded, formed chicken "patties" is much easier than adding a salad bar.
But.. a salad bar will do the same thing without portions being cut, so.. no.

The schools have to have a set number of meat or meat substitutes each week, so they have to do smaller chicken patties or other such meals instead of simply replacing it with salads.

[patches70]

I don't really understand this one. The kids getting free lunches are boycotting the free lunches? I can understand why they may be upset at the smaller portions, but if their family is actually so poor that they've qualified for free lunches, the odds are at least decent that this is STILL their best meal of the day.

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- "Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"

And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.

Except, who is coercing whom and why?

The poor kids have not had the option of better lunches for some time now. They are pretty well stuck eating unhealthy foods..and, for a lifetime, get used to eating those foods. My son was introduced to "eggo" type waffles, french toast sticks and other "wonderful" "foods" when he bought his meals at school. He still buys his lunch, but not his breakfasts. Its a compromise, but he felt funny bringing his own lunch.

The real "coersion" has been school cafeterias and administrations caring more about cutting costs than giving the kids a healthy and tasty lifetime example of the kinds of meals they should eat.

I'm pretty sure you're completely missing my point.

I don't care who gets school lunches, who brings their own lunch, what the portions are, or anything else on that matter. That's just how The State works, I accept that.

Some wish to boycott and bring their own lunch to school, for whatever reason. More power to them.
Some wish to keep on buying the school lunches, for whatever reason. More power to them.

There is plenty of room for either. What I'm talking about is the horrible tactics being used to attempt to change the minds of those boycotting. Those tactics are unethical, immoral and immaterial.

That is all I was commenting about. If a family has decided that the portions being served at school are too small, not healthy enough or for whatever reason wish to pack their own lunch, that should be all fine and dandy to all concerned. Period.
There is no reason for the school officials or those who purchase school lunches, to try and persuade those who do not wish to participate in the school lunch program using the lunch lady losing her job or the poor kid might not be able to get a free lunch because of the actions of the boycotting students.

The tactics mentioned in the article posted are disgusting. Attempts to shame those who are opting out of the lunch program into joining back with the Collective.
What is wrong with someone being dissatisfied with a product and taking legal measures to provide said product on their own?
Not a damn thing. More power to them and the arguments on why they shouldn't be doing that are all wrong. Hell, Player, you're bitching about the school lunch program yourself. If you don't like the school lunch program then by all means, shouldn't you have the option to send your own kid in with his own lunch?

If one is unable to provide said lunches on their own, there really isn't a damn thing they can do about it, is there? They have to take what's provided. And by all means, if what's provided doesn't satisfy them, even though they cannot afford or provide better for themselves anyway, then they may petition for changes.
But don't try and make that petition dependent on forcing everyone else who can provide for themselves to be forced into participating into something they do not wish to participate in.

[Woodruff]

I don't really understand this one. The kids getting free lunches are boycotting the free lunches? I can understand why they may be upset at the smaller portions, but if their family is actually so poor that they've qualified for free lunches, the odds are at least decent that this is STILL their best meal of the day.

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

Ok, fair enough.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- "Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"
And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.
And, I would like to add, Woodruff, that if The State want's to provide free lunches to poor families, then do so. But it should not be dependent at all on if other students purchase school lunches or not. The implication of the school official is that if these boycotts continue it could put the lunch subsidy at risk. This is complete BS and is is called coercive persuasion which is very unethical and immoral. I would like to think you would agree with that.

Yes, I believe I already agreed with you on that. You didn't read my post that you responded to?

[Woodruff]

I don't really understand this one. The kids getting free lunches are boycotting the free lunches? I can understand why they may be upset at the smaller portions, but if their family is actually so poor that they've qualified for free lunches, the odds are at least decent that this is STILL their best meal of the day.

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- "Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"

And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.

Except, who is coercing whom and why?

Pretty clearly, in this example, a lunch lady was.

The poor kids have not had the option of better lunches for some time now. They are pretty well stuck eating unhealthy foods..and, for a lifetime, get used to eating those foods. My son was introduced to "eggo" type waffles, french toast sticks and other "wonderful" "foods" when he bought his meals at school. He still buys his lunch, but not his breakfasts. Its a compromise, but he felt funny bringing his own lunch.
The real "coersion" has been school cafeterias and administrations caring more about cutting costs than giving the kids a healthy and tasty lifetime example of the kinds of meals they should eat.

That's not really coercion. That's more like requirement.

[Woodruff]

Oh, I'm figuring that those poorer income families, those kids won't be boycotting the lunches, no matter how small or whatever.

It's that an authority figure, talking to the kids boycotting is saying in effect- Your actions are putting into jeopardy these other kids who depend on these free lunches, "Your action could cause us to lose the ability to provide these lunches to them. You don't want some of your classmates to go hungry do you?"
And that, my friend, is a type of coercion.

Essentially you're bullshitting. I've read your post three times and oddly enough it makes less sense each time.

Really?

[Phatscotty]

Then you can't say those kids are starving.
So lets ignore that.

Why can't you bring your own food to your high school?

These kids did precisely that, and good for them. The school was not providing them with an adequate service, so they boycotted that service and found an alternative.

So what's the problem? I'm asking this in a completely serious manner. I see no problem here.

That kids chose to stand against the nanny-state control is a good thing. The fact that the federal government thinks they need to dictate the number of calories kids get to eat from school lunches is the problem. It's absolute control by the government that simply harms people.

It's not a problem, in my opinion. Childhood obesity is a very serious problem in this nation. You want less taxes and less government spending...well, a healthy populace is one way to help that.

Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.

Since when do the "experts" get to decide my personal freedoms?

It's funny how often you're in favor of the government dictating personal freedoms that you like, and how often you're not in favor of the government dictating personal freedoms you don't like.

Examples?

To name two off the top of my head, "gay marriage" and "legalization of drugs".

To me, it's not about being for or against. It's about "in practice", the people choose at the state level. That is democracy. That is Liberty

[Woodruff]

To me, it's not about being for or against. It's about "in practice", the people choose at the state level. That is democracy. That is Liberty

Did that actually make sense to you when you typed it? Because that is NOT liberty, nor is it necessarily democracy. Your definitions seem to become more fucked up every time you try to post one.

[Phatscotty]