Public School Bans Lunches From Home

[rambone]

Forced sterilization is the moral equivalent of government rape.

If your gonna rape someone or have a bunch of kids in order to "work" the system , I have NO qualms about you gettin sterilized . Not you specifically , in general .

Correct the system by eliminating the entitlements. I'm with you there.

However, I'd not stand by to see fellow citizens lined up and neutered by the government, no matter how much of a low-life they are. That's not freedom, that's fascism.

Making children wards of the state is essentially kidnapping.

In order to "salvage" them and teach them to be productive members instead of what they're gonna learn now .

Aren't government schools doing a good enough job of making kids into socially-conformed little citizens? Do we have the money for this? Shall we create an agency to act as full-time kidnappers or just allow cops to compromise their morals by doing this work?

AAK!! Wards of the state?? Shall we call it the "Obama Youth" program?

 

[rambone]

Back to the OP for a moment.

They are basing their logic on the assumption that the school food is the healthier option than what kids would otherwise be eating. When the truth is that most of that assembly-line, processed garbage food is pretty darn low on the scales when it comes to nutritional value.

No doubt they'll be serving hormone-filled pasteurized milk, nitrate-laced pseudo-meat from corn-fed antibiotic-treated animals, genetically-modified potatoes with a side of High Fructose Corn Syrup Ketchup...

Yeah I'm being serious. Its a joke that their mandatory food is the "healthier" choice.

 

[goinggreyfast]

"If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat???"

 

[88GT]

I agree with this, but it's a no-win situation. Sure we can tell them "too bad" but then innocent kids who didn't have a choice in the matter starve to death. That's why there isn't a solution to this problem, an easy one doesn't exist. These kinds of solutions are "perfect world" options.

Sure there's a solution. But it would require most people to check their egos at the door and refrain from imposing their own personal morality on others. It would also require altering the paradigm of setting our children up on pedestals and granting them rights and privileges at the expense of the rights and liberties of the parents.

Not too many people willing to do that. Oh, boo hoo, children might die because we didn't control the actions of parents.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

AAK!! Wards of the state?? Shall we call it the "Obama Youth" program?

As I see it , people with no morals / values / common sense + too much freedom = the sorry state we're in now .

The bottom line is simple , if people cannot govern themselves they will be governed .

In it's simplest form , isn't that what this thread is about ?

 

[badwolf.usmc]

The argument you present smells to high heaven.

Yet another reason why the government has NO business educating/feeding/raising our children.

Since the government, at one level or another, has been in the business of providing education in America since the mid 1600s, I'm a bit confused about how the government has no business educating our children.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States

It is wikipedia so take it however you like, but it has been a long established tradition within the US of the government providing education to the public. While it wasn't until the late 1800s that education became universally compulsory, education has been offered to the public long before the founding of our country.


The argument I have is this, let experts do their jobs. Do you tell a carpenter how to do his job? Yes, you tell him what you want done and maybe how you want it done, but then you get out of his way. You don't tell him how to swing his hammer, how to lay down mortar or how to hang dry wall. You wouldn't tell a doctor how to conduct heart surgery, or a gunsmith on how to repair a bolt or fix a breech. But most people are more than willing to disregard expert advice from teachers for some reason.

Teachers are training on how to teach and they go to school for years to learn how to do this, and most have years of field experience. They are just like anyone else, there are liberals & conservatives, good & bad ones, but overall most just teach the material that the democratically elected officials tell them to teach.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

And let the Police - the EXPERTS, be the ones to protect your family...

You don't need to have a gun... So hand the rights and the responsibilities over...

Not on your life!

Yeesh... No I do not tell a carpenter how to do his job. And I believe that teachers are a good thing. I believe that education is MUCH better done on a private level - as the Government has made a complete Charley Foxtrot of it. Most TEACHERS are what's RIGHT about it. The Administration/System is what is wrong about it.

Some jobs (education of the children being one, in my humble opinion) are SO important that they require MASSIVE parental involvement. I won't tell my mechanic how to fix my car. What's the risk if he screws up? OK - my car is crappy - I WILL LIVE... Screw up my KIDS - and the effects will be felt for GENERATIONS. I _AGREE_ with you that there are problem parents out there. That is not different than problem mechanics, car owners, carpenters, home owners, or anything else.

Where you and I seem to disagree is on what to do about it. A) We can go all nanny-state and tell EVERYONE what they must eat and drink. or B) We can educate and supplement as needed. Or we can go to C) Which is to have the school be funded privately - so if the parents WANT option A) they can leave their kids in such a school or if they want B) they can move them to that kind of a school.

Again - to be REALLY clear - I TOTALLY believe in listening to teachers and other experts. I simply DO NOT BELIEVE THAT hiring a teacher in any way RELIEVES THE PARENT OF THEIR PRIMARY ROLE TO EDUCATE the child in question. REPEAT - the PARENT has the PRIMARY responsibility for the welfare of the child and their long term success.

There are some things so vital - that you simply DON'T hand them over to the government and say "here you go - hope it all works out well". The education of my kids will ever be so. LISTEN to teachers - hell yes. WORK WITH teachers, hell yes. RESPECT TEACHERS, hell yes. TURN THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TOTALLY OVER TO THE SCHOOL - HELL NO!

I hope my respect for teachers has been made clear here. And PLEASE tell me that you are not implying that I am too stupid and uneducated to raise children, sir - or this is going to get ugly in a real big hurry. I don't THINK that was your intent - and I certainly pray that it wasn't. There are some elitists that feel that way, and I have very strong feelings towards such people.

 

[rambone]

As I see it , people with no morals / values / common sense + too much freedom = the sorry state we're in now .

Too much freedom? Not since I've been alive. We are more controlled than ever. There are more laws than ever. The reach of government expands on a daily basis.

The more the government tries to coddle the public, the more people will lose their morals/values/common sense.

So one more control over student lunches is just another step toward creating a nation of total sheep, lost without government herding them into smaller and smaller grazing areas.

The bottom line is simple , if people cannot govern themselves they will be governed .

In it's simplest form , isn't that what this thread is about ?

I thought it was about little community dictators wanting to control people's lives.

 

[eldirector]

As I see it , people with no morals / values / common sense + too much freedom = the sorry state we're in now .

To much freedom? No such thing.

Well, maybe "freedom from suffering the repercussions of your actions". WAY too much of that going around these days.

I say, let the parents raise their children however they see fit. That INCLUDES letting them fail or succeed all on their own (from a government perspective).

 

[ATOMonkey]

Since the government, at one level or another, has been in the business of providing education in America since the mid 1600s, I'm a bit confused about how the government has no business educating our children.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States

It is wikipedia so take it however you like, but it has been a long established tradition within the US of the government providing education to the public. While it wasn't until the late 1800s that education became universally compulsory, education has been offered to the public long before the founding of our country.


The argument I have is this, let experts do their jobs. Do you tell a carpenter how to do his job? Yes, you tell him what you want done and maybe how you want it done, but then you get out of his way. You don't tell him how to swing his hammer, how to lay down mortar or how to hang dry wall. You wouldn't tell a doctor how to conduct heart surgery, or a gunsmith on how to repair a bolt or fix a breech. But most people are more than willing to disregard expert advice from teachers for some reason.

Teachers are training on how to teach and they go to school for years to learn how to do this, and most have years of field experience. They are just like anyone else, there are liberals & conservatives, good & bad ones, but overall most just teach the material that the democratically elected officials tell them to teach.

If a carpenter or a mason does a crappy job, do you just say, "who am I to question this? They're the professional."

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

To much freedom? No such thing.

Well, maybe "freedom from suffering the repercussions of your actions". WAY too much of that going around these days.

This ^ , is what I'm getting at with the too much freedom thing .

 

[ATOMonkey]

This ^ , is what I'm getting at with the too much freedom thing .

That's not freedom, that's government.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

ArmedProgrammer: The police are not there to protect your family, but to catch people who have already committed a crime. It is a side benefit that when the police catch a criminal they "protect" your family from possible future crime, but that is not their primary purpose nor should it be.

You and I seem to agree on 99% of this issue. Parents should be the primary educators of their children as they are best able to teach their kids what they really need to know.

Also, I do not know you so I can't/won't judge you on however you want to raise your kids. Not my place nor do I want it to be. I have seen enough places and talked to enough people to know that I have no business judging anybody else, and if that is what you got from me then i apologize, that was never my intent.

What we seem to disagree on is what should be done with the children that have parents that are don't know how to take care of their kids, or are unwilling to. Most solutions people propose, while take aim at the parents, will harm the children they suppose to help than the parents themselves. What is better, spend a few thousand dollars to educated certain parents on how to take care of their kids and possible give these kids a better future, or have these kids turn out just like their parents?

ATOMonkey: If they do a crappy job then you complain to their manager and get the situation fixed. If the manager does not respond as you want to your complaint then you can take your business somewhere else. There are options other than public schooling.


While I don't agree with school systems not allowing kids to bring in lunch from home as a substitute for a school provided lunch, i can understand why they would want to do it though. As a people, we tend to cater to the exceptions within our society than the norm, but i guess that goes for just about everything.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Too much freedom? Not since I've been alive. We are more controlled than ever. There are more laws than ever. The reach of government expands on a daily basis.

And why is that ? Because a lot people nowadays are too stupid govern themselves . For example , an appliance company comes to install your new range . By IN law/Marion county code , they have to secure it to the floor . Guess why , because some ignorant parents let their kids climb all over them and got hurt , sued and got paid .

How many laws are there to protect people from their own stupidity ?

The more the government tries to coddle the public, the more people will lose their morals/values/common sense.

So one more control over student lunches is just another step toward creating a nation of total sheep, lost without government herding them into smaller and smaller grazing areas.

This is where the ass kickin / sterilization parts kicks in . Try to re-teach folks common sense things like sugar for any meal the kids want is bad for them and as a parent you can't always be their friend .

BTW , if you can't afford to properly feed and cloth your kids your gonna have to give up the cable , cigs , junk food , alcohol and drugs .

If the parents are too stupid to grasp the above , they shouldn't have more kids . Instead of giving (insert stereotypical name here) free rent , food and medical , take the kids , sterilize her and kick her out on her ass .

Tell 'em hey , if you can un-**** yourself for 1 year you can have your kids back but you won't be having any more .



I thought it was about little community dictators wanting to control people's lives.

If we're gonna let people do what ever they want then we should also let them fail or die because of the choices they make . Natural selection .

Too many folks are too stupid / lazy / whatever to govern their selves in a manner that benefits society in general that the government has to step in and protect them from themselves .

Seems like cause and effect to me .

 

[level.eleven]

ATOMonkey: If they do a crappy job then you complain to their manager and get the situation fixed. If the manager does not respond as you want to your complaint then you can take your business somewhere else. There are options other than public schooling.

Sweet. I get a 50% reduction in property taxes as well, right?

 

[dross]

As I see it , people with no morals / values / common sense + too much freedom = the sorry state we're in now .

The bottom line is simple , if people cannot govern themselves they will be governed .

In it's simplest form , isn't that what this thread is about ?

Who are the people with too much freedom as it relates to this?

Who are the people unable to govern themselves?

I'm not sure I understand your argument.

 

[rambone]

And why is that ? Because a lot people nowadays are too stupid govern themselves . For example , an appliance company comes to install your new range . By IN law/Marion county code , they have to secure it to the floor . Guess why , because some ignorant parents let their kids climb all over them and got hurt , sued and got paid .

How many laws are there to protect people from their own stupidity?

Because tyrants and control-freaks have jumped at every opportunity to tighten the noose on our freedoms. People have died in every way imaginable in the course of human history. You can't ban everything, and call yourself "Land of the Free."

How many Nanny State laws are there? Way too many. Sounds like you are in favor of more.

This is where the ass kickin / sterilization parts kicks in . Try to re-teach folks common sense things like sugar for any meal the kids want is bad for them and as a parent you can't always be their friend .

Forced Sterilization is about as totalitarian as it gets. You are telling me that you want the government to reign over the public as if they were wild animals or something. Its scary. I'm not going to stand by and watch my countrymen be put into concentration camps or be surgically mutilated by the government.

If the parents are too stupid to grasp the above , they shouldn't have more kids . Instead of giving (insert stereotypical name here) free rent , food and medical , take the kids , sterilize her and kick her out on her ass .

Tell 'em hey , if you can un-**** yourself for 1 year you can have your kids back but you won't be having any more .

Let's just end the welfare, free rent, food, and medical. Save the fascist dictator stuff for the history books.

 

[lashicoN]

Define reasonable choice please.

Is the Mountain Dew on a bus for lunch to a Museum a wise choice that will hinder my child's education? In which case, you bet your ass i will be pointing out that idiotic decision to you as a father to another father. man to man. Not the schools job. It's mine. Was i not clear in that point?

M

That's public school for you. Odds are, the type of parent to send mountain dew with their kid on a field trip to a museum either doesn't care what their kid drinks or doesn't know that their kid packed it. Either way, you probably won't be received very well offering your parental advice to a fellow parent about what their children eats or drinks. If people don't want the government telling them what to do with their own bodies, why would they want to hear it from you? I don't see how you think it's your job to tell other parents what to feed their children.

Since the government, at one level or another, has been in the business of providing education in America since the mid 1600s, I'm a bit confused about how the government has no business educating our children.

The argument I have is this, let experts do their jobs. Do you tell a carpenter how to do his job? Yes, you tell him what you want done and maybe how you want it done, but then you get out of his way. You don't tell him how to swing his hammer, how to lay down mortar or how to hang dry wall. You wouldn't tell a doctor how to conduct heart surgery, or a gunsmith on how to repair a bolt or fix a breech. But most people are more than willing to disregard expert advice from teachers for some reason.

The government has no business educating our kids because they have no business educating our kids. That is the job of the kid's parents, and if they don't want to do it, they can hire someone else to do it for them. Just because you hire someone to teach your kid, doesn't mean you have to give up all of your rights. It doesn't mean they are in charge of what your children consume for food. Teachers should teach. The fact that they are even thinking about lunch shows what kind of state our public education system is in. It doesn't matter how long they have been doing it. It didn't matter how long slavery had been around either.

I've never heard of a carpenter, doctor, police officer, or gunsmith try to force kids to eat their food only. They also don't threaten families with truancy crimes, or any of the other bull**** that teachers and school admins do all the time. If you think you have the right to tell me and my children what they can eat or drink, then you're simply mistaken about how much authority I've granted you.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

badwolf - It does sound like we agree more than it would initially appear.

While I understand why an administrator might WANT to tell kids they can't bring lunches from home - it's a HUGE overstep of their authority when they DO it. I might _want_ to pimp-slap a LOT of people for being idiots - but I have no RIGHT to do so...

Indeed it must be tough for teachers to watch kids come to school already messed up because their parents are being idiots. That breaks EVERYONE's heart. Unless there is abuse going on though - we can't change everything. My wife and I have the right to make dumb decisions - even for our kids, UNLESS it rises to the level of abuse. We don't need a bunch of "minders" from the gubbamint to second-guess us. That's why there needs to be VERY careful safeguards on things like CPS as well. Very needed - but to be used very carefully and judiciously.

As to one of your other points - we are NOT really free to choose, as we do not direct the dollars. We pay taxes into the (public)schools regardless. I would opt for a more voucher-ish way to go as an intermediate step to full privatization. And I recognize that some cannot pay for it - so that some kind of provision would need to be made.

Thanks for the reasonable discussion on the issue - it's one that gets me a little hot under the collar. If that was misdirected at you rather than at the subject/argument - then I apologize for that. Not my intent. I have four children ranging from 7-18... oldest a senior heading off to college. All fairly solid students (knocks on wood ). My wife and I take it pretty seriously. So while I understand why a school administrator might think it's a great idea to take over the nutritionist role as well... I value my (and my kid's and grandkid's) freedom too much to go for that.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

ArmedProgrammer: The police are not there to protect your family, but to catch people who have already committed a crime. It is a side benefit that when the police catch a criminal they "protect" your family from possible future crime, but that is not their primary purpose nor should it be.

...

What we seem to disagree on is what should be done with the children that have parents that are don't know how to take care of their kids, or are unwilling to. Most solutions people propose, while take aim at the parents, will harm the children they suppose to help than the parents themselves. What is better, spend a few thousand dollars to educated certain parents on how to take care of their kids and possible give these kids a better future, or have these kids turn out just like their parents?

...

A couple of further thoughts....

You might want to talk with the TSA about that first part... (grin)

We can debate about how best to educate the parents that are ignorant - and whether that's properly a government role or not. I believe that other avenues may be better suited. The "Great Society" has not turned out so "great" in my opinion.