PLAYER57832 wrote: patches70 wrote: Woodruff wrote:
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.