Moderator: Community Team
Juan_Bottom wrote:Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.
Juan_Bottom wrote: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?
Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: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?
Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: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.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Ok then personal freedom was never ever endangered anyway. Bazinga.
Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: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.
Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: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.
patches70 wrote:"I don't think these lunch ladies should lose their jobs. One of them came up to us and said we might lose our jobs if this continues,"[/i]
patches70 wrote: failure to follow them could mean students who get federally funded lunch might lose their subsidy.
patches70 wrote:And then there is the manipulated price that has nothing to do with any normal rules of economics-
we are required every year to raise our price by federal mandate."
patches70 wrote:So, by students not "getting with the program" and exercising free choice by bringing their own lunches they are putting people's jobs at risk and threatening the "charity" status of The State being able to provide free lunches to low income families. It seems one is a heel to exercise their freedom.
It should not be that way.
Night Strike wrote:Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: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.Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: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?
Night Strike wrote:Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: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.
Night Strike wrote:Woodruff wrote:Night Strike wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: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?
Juan_Bottom wrote:Another hit piece without any skepticism. Where are the experts? It's just kids and their mom talking.
tzor wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: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? Most importantly, how far removed from reality are they? The evolution of the Philosopher King of Plato to the modern breaucurat / expert has basically been a perpetual struggle at renaming and rebranding. And so we have these (apparently) food experts who in their infinite wisdom know exactly how every good little boy and girl should eat and how every good little boy and girl should all eat exactly alike; the athletic and the studious. For it must be true; as they have decreed it so.
patches70 wrote:The automatic raising of the prices by federal mandate should also be troublesome. It's one thing if it's because of economic conditions, it's quite another for the government to step and and raise the prices by fiat while actually lowering the amount of product one gets as those prices continue to rise (artificially).
This whole thing is yet another example of how government comes in to "fix" one supposed problem and creates more problems. Trade offs. That's what it's about, but when these types of policies are enacted no one ever talks about or considers the trade offs and consequences of said policies.
patches70 wrote:When students and families take matters into their own hands and attempt to opt out of the policy, in come the sycophants trying to shame, threaten and coerce everyone to tow the line.
It's sickening.
Woodruff wrote:patches70 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.
patches70 wrote:Woodruff wrote:patches70 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.
tzor wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: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? .
patches70 wrote:
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.
PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: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 wrote:Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
PLAYER57832 wrote:patches70 wrote:Woodruff wrote:patches70 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.
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.
patches70 wrote: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 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?
PLAYER57832 wrote: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.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users