Don't be fooled

SmarterThanYou said:
where is the constitutional authority for that?
Click to expand...

Does it matter? I am dealing with the facts. In times of national emergency the state has assumed the right to impose a draft, that you don't agree with it is inconsequential. One of the reasons why rich politicians are able to send people off to war so easily now is because they know that their own families will not be affected. That said, I am not in favour of bringing back the draft but you have to admit that it would certainly concentrate the minds of the rich and powerful if they thought they were sending their own off to die in a foreign land.

Turning back to the real issue, I believe that schools have the right and indeed the moral imperative to try to correct the bad life lessons that some parents choose to inflict on their offspring. No doubt you will accuse me of favouring the nanny state, obviously you need to strike a balance between coercion and guidance. Your answer is well who cares if some kids end up with the shitty end of the stick, that's just tough.
 
tom prendergast said:
Does it matter? I am dealing with the facts. In times of national emergency the state has assumed the right to impose a draft, that you don't agree with it is inconsequential. One of the reasons why rich politicians are able to send people off to war so easily now is because they know that their own families will not be affected. That said, I am not in favour of bringing back the draft but you have to admit that it would certainly concentrate the minds of the rich and powerful if they thought they were sending their own off to die in a foreign land.

Turning back to the real issue, I believe that schools have the right and indeed the moral imperative to try to correct the bad life lessons that some parents choose to inflict on their offspring. No doubt you will accuse me of favouring the nanny state, obviously you need to strike a balance between coercion and guidance. Your answer is well who cares if some kids end up with the shitty end of the stick, that's just tough.
Click to expand...

Why stop at children? what about the countless adults that had similarly poor upbringing. why ignore their plight? You want to tax them to pay to help someone else
 
tom prendergast said:
Of course I'm not saying that, I was trying to point out that the state has the power over people to draft them when it sees fit. Yet when somebody says that the authorities should play some role in educating and guiding kids to eat healthily, you get all the backwoodsmen coming out and saying that not why we fought and died for freedom.
Click to expand...

No one here is against educating and guiding kids to eat healthy. But this measure goes too far. It dictates what the children will eat every day they are in school, whether the parents approve or not.

If it were just a program about educating and guiding kids to eat healthy, we would be behind it.
 
WinterBorn said:
No one here is against educating and guiding kids to eat healthy. But this measure goes too far. It dictates what the children will eat every day they are in school, whether the parents approve or not.

If it were just a program about educating and guiding kids to eat healthy, we would be behind it.
Click to expand...

We have had the same debate in the UK, the problem is that the parents will just resist any attempt to stop their kids eating junk.

 
WinterBorn said:
I had to fight against this sort of thing when my kids were little. The fact that the school serves balanced meals is meaningless if the kids do not eat the food served. It is not just picky eaters, but the tastes kids have.
Click to expand...

While that's true many kids will try something new if they're hungry.

And beyond that, it goes back to the same complaint of having the gov't tell me they know better how to raise my kids.
Click to expand...

A balanced meal is better. Logically, people would want the best food available for their child.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
This is typical liberal elitist 'we know whats best for you' attitude. this is why liberalism is a mental disorder. that you can tell people how to live their lives and think it's ok.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is OK to tell children what to eat. That's what responsible adults are supposed to do. The mental disorder is people objecting to their children eating proper food.
 
bravo said:
Nothing is wrong with a little 'food education'....this isn't about 'food education' or any other kind of education....its about freedom...freedom to eat what you fuckin' CHOOSE to eat and not what someone else thinks you should eat....freedom to raise your children as you see fit, .......ever hear of "freedom" ?....
Click to expand...

Yes, I've heard of freedom. Religious wackos willing to let their children die because they disagreee with blood transfusions or believe that God will save the child.

Sorry, but when it comes to children their welfare comes before anybody's so-called freedom to be wacko parents.
 
tom prendergast said:
We have had the same debate in the UK, the problem is that the parents will just resist any attempt to stop their kids eating junk.

Click to expand...

No, this is about parents resisting attempts to usurp their authority over their children's lives.

Plus, this is about taking away a parent's authority regardless of whether their children eat junk or not.
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, it is OK to tell children what to eat. That's what responsible adults are supposed to do. The mental disorder is people objecting to their children eating proper food.
Click to expand...

The mental disorder is people not objecting to the government telling them what their kids can and will be allowed to eat.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, this is about parents resisting attempts to usurp their authority over their children's lives.

Plus, this is about taking away a parent's authority regardless of whether their children eat junk or not.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what Jamie Oliver was trying to do in Rotherham. That mother was one of a group that was passing junk food to their children through a fence at lunch time, because they didn't like the school policy of introducing healthier meals.
 
apple0154 said:
While that's true many kids will try something new if they're hungry.



A balanced meal is better. Logically, people would want the best food available for their child.
Click to expand...


And what you are posting here makes sense. But forcing kids to eat only the lunches prepared by the school oversteps their authority.

Refusing to allow parents the power to determine what their children eat is overstepping the bounds of authority. You want to ban sodas, candy or other real junk, ok. But telling the parents of a healthy, active child that they cannot send the child's lunch to school is far beyond that.
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, it is OK to tell children what to eat. That's what responsible adults are supposed to do. The mental disorder is people objecting to their children eating proper food.
Click to expand...

But this measure does fa more than that. What about the parents who packed healthful, nutritious lunches that they know their childrn like and will eat? You are stopping them too.

No one is objecting to children eating healthy food. They are objecting to the gov't removing the parent's authority from the equation.
 
WinterBorn said:
And what you are posting here makes sense. But forcing kids to eat only the lunches prepared by the school oversteps their authority.

Refusing to allow parents the power to determine what their children eat is overstepping the bounds of authority. You want to ban sodas, candy or other real junk, ok. But telling the parents of a healthy, active child that they cannot send the child's lunch to school is far beyond that.
Click to expand...

This is a nothing post sense I made a mistake in who I was posting.
 
tom prendergast said:
Which is exactly what Jamie Oliver was trying to do in Rotherham. That mother was one of a group that was passing junk food to their children through a fence at lunch time, because they didn't like the school policy of introducing healthier meals.
Click to expand...

So ban the junk food. There is no need to ban healthful lunches from being brought to school.
 
tom prendergast said:
Which is exactly what Jamie Oliver was trying to do in Rotherham. That mother was one of a group that was passing junk food to their children through a fence at lunch time, because they didn't like the school policy of introducing healthier meals.
Click to expand...


Why a Groan?

Are you saying the government should tell parents what their kids can eat?
 
WinterBorn said:
And what you are posting here makes sense. But forcing kids to eat only the lunches prepared by the school oversteps their authority.

Refusing to allow parents the power to determine what their children eat is overstepping the bounds of authority. You want to ban sodas, candy or other real junk, ok. But telling the parents of a healthy, active child that they cannot send the child's lunch to school is far beyond that.
Click to expand...

So how hard is to understand that at least the kids get one decent meal a day? Their parents can feed them any old crap outside school. I really don't think that previous generations fought and died for the right for parents to feed pigswill to their children.
 
Liberty said:
The mental disorder is people not objecting to the government telling them what their kids can and will be allowed to eat.
Click to expand...

Suppose your neighbour was encouraging their 5 & 6 year old children to smoke 40 cigarettes a day, or feeding them whisky with their morning cereal. Would you stand by because the parents had the right to bring up their children in the way they choose, or would you support the children's right not to be abused?
Because, like it or not, an morbidly obese child cannot live a normal, healthy life, will consume more than the average healthcare and will die sooner than a well fed and well guided child.
 
Lowaicue said:
Suppose your neighbour was encouraging their 5 & 6 year old children to smoke 40 cigarettes a day, or feeding them whisky with their morning cereal. Would you stand by because the parents had the right to bring up their children in the way they choose, or would you support the children's right not to be abused?
Because, like it or not, an morbidly obese child cannot live a normal, healthy life, will consume more than the average healthcare and will die sooner than a well fed and well guided child.
Click to expand...

Apparently there is a consensus here to let them do anything they want, in the name of freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top