Don't be fooled

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.
Click to expand...
and now i see your issue. you feel powerless against the government assuming rights where none exist, but since you feel powerless, you wish to impose that powerlessness on others. why won't you stand up for your rights?

tom prendergast said:
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...
i'm no longer sure you favor the nanny state, but more like you go along with it because you can't fight it. so if you can't fight it, you adopt their mindset of the state as your parent. that's pretty pathetic.
 
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 non parents believing they are better than real parents, or that they feel they can parent other peoples kids better. there's no freedom in that. but you don't like freedom anyway.
 
tom prendergast said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are completely missing the point (or ignoring it). This is not about the food. This is about the gov't usurping the parental authority.

You are convicting all parents of feeding their children junk every time they send lunches to school.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and now i see your issue. you feel powerless against the government assuming rights where none exist, but since you feel powerless, you wish to impose that powerlessness on others. why won't you stand up for your rights?


i'm no longer sure you favor the nanny state, but more like you go along with it because you can't fight it. so if you can't fight it, you adopt their mindset of the state as your parent. that's pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...

I would choose a different battlefield, there are many more fundamental issues on which to stand your ground. You should know that in a very short period of time the US dollar will no longer be the world's reserve currency, when that happens the shit will really hit the fan for the standard of living in the US.
 
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...

Fine, so prosecute those parents. What this school is doing is removing the rights of all the parents of kids in that school.
 
tom prendergast said:
Apparently there is a consensus here to let them do anything they want, in the name of freedom.
Click to expand...

No, despite your strawman, that is NOT what we are saying. What you are saying is that, since some parents give their kids junkfood the state should write the menu for all families.
 
tom prendergast said:
I think it was Taki Theodoracopulos who called the USA, the land of the freeby and the home of the depraved. I find it astonishing that there is such a groundswell of opinion in defence of parents abusing their offspring.
Click to expand...

What nice strawman piece of bullshit. Show me one post where anyone is defending parents abusin their offspring.

Teen pregnancy is a huge problem, so why not teach abstinance education and separate the genders until they graduate?

Alcoholism causes so many problems it would b hard to list them all. Drunk drivers kill 20k+ people a year. Should we ban alcohol?



After all, both of those would be good for people.
 
tom prendergast said:
I would choose a different battlefield, there are many more fundamental issues on which to stand your ground. You should know that in a very short period of time the US dollar will no longer be the world's reserve currency, when that happens the shit will really hit the fan for the standard of living in the US.
Click to expand...

what battlefield are you choosing? what issues are you standing your ground? what will YOU do when the shit hits the fan?
 
WinterBorn said:
What nice strawman piece of bullshit. Show me one post where anyone is defending parents abusin their offspring.

Teen pregnancy is a huge problem, so why not teach abstinance education and separate the genders until they graduate?

Alcoholism causes so many problems it would b hard to list them all. Drunk drivers kill 20k+ people a year. Should we ban alcohol?



After all, both of those would be good for people.
Click to expand...

Here is a good example of the uphill struggle, six year old kids don't even know the names of vegetables. It seems to me that if you want to change behaviour then you need to catch them early.

 
tom prendergast said:
Here is a good example of the uphill struggle, six year old kids don't even know the names of vegetables. It seems to me that if you want to change behaviour then you need to catch them early.

Click to expand...

Great, so TEACH them. Encourage them to eat well. Ban pure junkfood from the school lunchroom. But taking away the parents rights is gong too far. This rule is also not allowing parents who want to send healthful foods that their kids like.
 
tom prendergast said:
I think it was Taki Theodoracopulos who called the USA, the land of the freeby and the home of the depraved. I find it astonishing that there is such a groundswell of opinion in defence of parents abusing their offspring.
Click to expand...
I find it astonishing that you are a far bigger asshole and narrow minded pinhead than I previously thought....I can only thank you for clearing that up for me .....
Prendergast and Lowaicue......it must be the water there or the natural product of a failing school system....
 
bravo said:
I find it astonishing that you are a far bigger asshole and narrow minded pinhead than I previously thought....I can only thank you for clearing that up for me .....
Click to expand...

Glad to be of service, are able to post anything that doesn't include the word pinhead? It is as regular as Taichiliberal referring to the chronology of posts and just as tiresome.
 
WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

How could a health policy be implemented if some children were permitted to bring their lunch? Every lunch would have to be checked. Imagine the uproar that would happen if a certain food was disqualified. And whose to say the child doesn't prefer the piece of cake for lunch instead of dessert after dinner?

Sometimes a general policy has to be put in place in order for it to function.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
in other words, starve them until they follow your directives. nice.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of what a friend of mine used to do when his children wouldn't eat their supper.

No problem. Put it in the fridge and when you're hungry that's the next thing you have to eat. So, if the child goes to bed hungry, refusing to eat a certain type of food, that's the breakfast menu.

I liked that idea.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the mental disorder is non parents believing they are better than real parents, or that they feel they can parent other peoples kids better. there's no freedom in that. but you don't like freedom anyway.
Click to expand...

When it comes to nutrition most nutritionists do know more than the average parent.
 
apple0154 said:
How could a health policy be implemented if some children were permitted to bring their lunch? Every lunch would have to be checked. Imagine the uproar that would happen if a certain food was disqualified. And whose to say the child doesn't prefer the piece of cake for lunch instead of dessert after dinner?

Sometimes a general policy has to be put in place in order for it to function.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the gov't shouldnot interfere. You are worried about the uproar that would be created by banning items that kids MIGHT bring to lunch. But you have no problem in telling parents that they have no say in what their kids eat.

Its not as if you have to search lockers. We re talking about LUNCHES. They will take them out and eat them in the lunchroom. Make a list of items the kids are not allowed to bring. Ban sodas with sugar, candy, or whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top