Personal responsibility and school lunches

[Sodafox]

This stems from the cancer thread because I find this topic really interesting.

Obviously healthy food that tastes great would be ideal but we're not there yet. However, I think the bigger problem is that the schools are responsible for the children's nutrition to the extent that they are in the first place.

 

[DaisyDay]

This stems from the cancer thread because I find this topic really interesting.

Obviously healthy food that tastes great would be ideal but we're not there yet. However, I think the bigger problem is that the schools are responsible for the children's nutrition to the extent that they are in the first place.

In what way is this a problem?

We could insist that each child's parent(s) be solely responsible, but for those whose aren't, such insistence would just punish the child. What is the best practical solution?

 

[Fantine]

Let's take care of the bigger problems first.

Lots of uninsured and underinsured. You don't get screenings if your policy has a $6000 deductible.

Environmental hazards. Deregulation endangers lives. As a society we need to decide whether deregulation that lowers life spans is ok. We can g o overboard either way. But we went the wrong way 2017-21.

We can end school lunch. Bring back labor unions. Raise the minimum wage to $15 and index to inflation. Stop lowering unemployment benefit limits.

So yes, given the right policies, we could end school lunch.

 

[cow451]

This stems from the cancer thread because I find this topic really interesting.

Obviously healthy food that tastes great would be ideal but we're not there yet. However, I think the bigger problem is that the schools are responsible for the children's nutrition to the extent that they are in the first place.

In areas of high poverty, one also finds marginally functioning "families". I have friends that work in some of the "tough" schools and they talk about some kids having no food other than what they get at school or day care. That is sometimes more about the family unit than lack of financial means. Or some are homes where the single parent works two jobs and is not home most of the time.

I would say that we could take care of some, if not most, of this with universal accessible healthcare and a basic standard for household income.

 

[Sodafox]

After mulling it over, I have to say I think schools should serve healthy foods even if it's not appealing to the children. As someone said in the other thread, if they're hungry, they'll eat it. It shouldn't be school's responsibility to make sure someone's children reaches their caloric needs for the day. And, yes, it's sad that children of single parents working two jobs might go without, but that's not the school's fault. If anything, I think the idea that school/society will take care of the kids only facilitates bad behavior. Not that having consequences will eliminate single parenthood entirely but maybe it will give more people pause not wanting to bring children into the world when they can't provide for them themselves. Or, as the child, using that experience and not wanting the same life for their own children.

*Edit: Or, if it is the school's responsibility to feed kids, go all in. Send a note to parents that the kid's caloric needs are met for the day and, aside from a granola bar or two (heck, even send the kids home with those), don't need any additional food from home. That saves the parent's time and feeds the kids. That said, all kids grow differently, so I don't think having the school in charge is a good idea. But, hey, someone has to take some responsibility somewhere. Whether it's the parents or the school I guess at the end of the day I don't really care.

 

[durangodawood]

Kids accustomed to foods engineered for addictive appeal often find actual good delicious food repulsive.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This stems from the cancer thread because I find this topic really interesting.

Obviously healthy food that tastes great would be ideal but we're not there yet. However, I think the bigger problem is that the schools are responsible for the children's nutrition to the extent that they are in the first place.

American poverty -- In some cases, that school meal may be the only one the kid gets. Better make it good for them.

 

[grasping the after wind]

This stems from the cancer thread because I find this topic really interesting.

Obviously healthy food that tastes great would be ideal but we're not there yet. However, I think the bigger problem is that the schools are responsible for the children's nutrition to the extent that they are in the first place.

I completely disagree that we are incapable of providing healthy food that tastes great.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Is it fair to consider - in a nation - all children all of our responsibility? All people all of our responsibility?

(I wonder where that conversation leads haha).

 

[grasping the after wind]

In what way is this a problem?

We could insist that each child's parent(s) be solely responsible, but for those whose aren't, such insistence would just punish the child. What is the best practical solution?

You don't see a problem in parents being irresponsible? The best practical solution is for parents to take responsibility for their children and their children's nutritional needs. Placing unpalatable as well as unhealthy food in front of them and pretending they will eat it and be properly nourished instead of discarding it is hardly a practical solution.

 

[Fantine]

So knowing they can't provide for a child may convince some not to have children?

Sociologists say that marriage is seen as a middle class construct so the best way to encourage marriage and families is to reduce income inequality and build the middle class.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Is it fair to consider - in a nation - all children all of our responsibility? All people all of our responsibility?

(I wonder where that conversation leads haha).

It is actually quite unfair to expect human beings to consider everyone their responsibility. As a Christian, I am tasked with loving everyone not being responsible for everyone. Is it unfair to ask parents to take responsibility for their own children rather than expecting strangers to do so for them?

 

[grasping the after wind]

So knowing they can't provide for a child may convince some not to have children?

Sociologists say that marriage is seen as a middle class construct so the best way to encourage marriage and families is to reduce income inequality and build the middle class.

Sociologists say many silly things.

 

[Fantine]

Ar least they have statistical analysis to back it up.

Keeping children hungry to prevent single pregnancy (when there are many medical means to prevent conception, many opposed by churches) seems sillier, and certainly more cruel.

 

[hislegacy]

Ar least they have statistical analysis to back it up.

Keeping children hungry to prevent single pregnancy (when there are many medical means to prevent conception, many opposed by churches) seems sillier, and certainly more cruel.

Can you please cite the statistical analysis showing clearly how "keeping children hungry" prevents single pregnancy?

As a Christian we have a GREAT method of preventing conception - know what it is? And it is 100% effective.

 

[Fantine]

As a Christian, I am tasked with loving everyone not being responsible for everyone. Is it unfair to ask parents to take responsibility for their own children rather than expecting strangers to do so for them?

And so your default is "tough love," which demands little or nothing of the "lover" and has the added benefit of seeming justified and self-righteous.

The small government, small heart solution.

 

[cow451]

You don't see a problem in parents being irresponsible? The best practical solution is for parents to take responsibility for their children and their children's nutritional needs. Placing unpalatable as well as unhealthy food in front of them and pretending they will eat it and be properly nourished instead of discarding it is hardly a practical solution.

If every parent could "just be responsible", we wouldn't need school lunches or most any other "welfare".

 

[hislegacy]

And so your default is "tough love," which demands little or nothing of the "lover" and has the added benefit of seeming justified and self-righteous.

The small government, small heart solution.

Not smaller than the heart who would end the life of a child in the name of contraception.

 

[cow451]

It is actually quite unfair to expect human beings to consider everyone their responsibility. As a Christian, I am tasked with loving everyone not being responsible for everyone. Is it unfair to ask parents to take responsibility for their own children rather than expecting strangers to do so for them?

....suffer the children....

 

[Fantine]

I did not say child hunger keeps the poor from procreation.

Sodafox said that less nutritional assistance might prevent some single people from having children. She was not citing a study.

You, also without cting a study, state abstinence is the answer.

Neither of you seem to support a pro-life backup plan for the hungry children in schools.