No lunches from home

[Umaro]

I consider them more knowledgeable in their field of expertise. It does not make them "better" than the average parent who is concerned about their child's wellbeing, absolutely not. Here's an example. My son's biological father had ten years worth of college to become an electrical engineer. He was an expert in his field. That does not mean, however, that he knew how to program a computer better than someone in IT or that he was an expert in industrial engineer.

A childhood nutritionist, for example, may know the recommended daily caloric intake for a male child, eight years of age. That does not mean, however, that they know the specific needs of your individual child. A good parent, however, would.

And yes, they oftentimes make laws based on the arrogance that the government knows better than the average citizen, therefore your rights must be reduced in order for them to come in and dictate how you live. After all, we're just too darn stupid to know any better.



Well, I tell you what - when you ever have a job as difficult as being a parent you may come back and say parental rights are a myth, or should be. Until then, you have no earthly idea what you're talking about. It's just a bunch of progressive hooey coming across the screen. And if we want to be really technical here, parents have rights. That's why in cases where a parent either chooses or the state intervenes and removes the child from the parent's custody it's called the "termination of parental rights".



Really? Because I'm pretty sure I have the right to decide what clothes my child wears and where he goes to school and what television shows he watches. No one else has the rights to make those decisions for my son. That's my job and privilege as a parent. Furthermore, children are not "tiny adults" and they have the right to not be abused and neglected. They don't have the right to vote, enter into military service, drive a car, sign a contract, consent sexual activity, etc.

So what makes you as a parent more qualified in determining what's best for you child to eat than a dietician? On the dietitians side he went to school and studied specifically nutrition for years, and on your side you put rod A into slot B. There's nothing inherently in becoming a parent that teaches anyone how to raise a child. From everything I've seen and heard, it's mostly trial and error. So by what logic do you know best? The kid didn't die yet? I just don't see a reason to take your word over the experts.

Not to mention you still haven't addressed the abject failure of most parents. If parents know what's best for their kids, why are 2/3 overweight? They're doing a terrible job at it, so why should I think they know better than the nutritionist tasked with fixing the problem? If parents were so good, wouldn't they have not let it happen in the first place, or at least started to combat it?

 

[keith99]

Assuming that people eat breakfast, lunch and dinner every day that comes out to 21 meals a week. There are 5 school lunches.

That is less than 1/4. That is not taking into account days when school is out or any extra meals/snacks.

Trying to improve nutrition by controling those meals in the manner done here is an idiots move. Forcing somethnig on people for less than 1/4 of their meals will not have a significant impact, other than to create a backlash.

Now if they were smart they would try to create nutritious and tasty meals that kids would like and that could possibly improve the habits of kids with poor habits otherwise, that could impact 100% of the meals eaten.

This is not about helping kids, it is about power.

 

[Drekkan85]

This is not about helping kids, it is about power.

This isn't about power - it's about destroying the Christian God and replacing it with Ba'al Zebor.

See how easy it is to make completely pointless and unfounded claims. How is this about "power". BWAHAHAH I have the power to not let you bring a brown paper bag to school. This plays into my plan

1) Ban home lunches
2) ???
3) WORLD DOMINATION!

This is patently ridiculous. Kids are overweight - this is one step that can be taken at very low cost and within the bounds of a system that is severely overtaxed precisely because there are so many bad parents.

The stated goal is to provide for better nutrition. If you say this is false, please provide proof. Please show how this results in increased power - and why they'd do it for that reason.

***

Also - curious subpoint. If parents have these property rights in their kids... can we trade them like trading cards?

 

[lawtonfogle]

This is not about helping kids, it is about power.

As are most laws saying that a person can/can't do something. Of course, those who get the power convince those who vote that it is about helping them. Next time you support a law to help someone, think if you are actually giving someone power with your support.

 

[DeathMagus]

Every law increases power for one group and decreases it for another. Simply granting someone power doesn't necessarily make a law bad - it makes a law not useless.

 

[Drekkan85]

I'm still left wanting to know "What power"? If this law is "about power" I'd expect the power involved here to be important. Why would a school implement this policy if it WASN'T about nutrition. What's the gain?

Do we really think schools are so petty that they do this purely to get the "power" of lunch setting and the accompanying jollies? What's the pay off? The most reasonable pay off seems to be improving the nutrition (in at least some ways) of children.

Absent any proof that that ISN'T what the law is about - tell me what "power" is involved.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm still left wanting to know "What power"? If this law is "about power" I'd expect the power involved here to be important. Why would a school implement this policy if it WASN'T about nutrition. What's the gain?

Do we really think schools are so petty that they do this purely to get the "power" of lunch setting and the accompanying jollies? What's the pay off? The most reasonable pay off seems to be improving the nutrition (in at least some ways) of children.

Absent any proof that that ISN'T what the law is about - tell me what "power" is involved.

It's all about the benjamins.

Look at that food. That's not nutritious food - that's processed TV dinner food, the kind that dieticians were yelling at us for serving to our kids at home.

I wouldn't feed my kids at home that crap, that's for sure.

So all I can think of is that someone is getting kickbacks and the people who own the companies supplying the food for these lunches are making more money.

 

[Drekkan85]

It's all about the benjamins.

Look at that food. That's not nutritious food - that's processed TV dinner food, the kind that dieticians were yelling at us for serving to our kids at home.

I wouldn't feed my kids at home that crap, that's for sure.

So all I can think of is that someone is getting kickbacks and the people who own the companies supplying the food for these lunches are making more money.

That isn't an argument against the system - it's an argument in favour of having watchdogs to ensure the quality of the food.

I'm loathe to make a decision based on a picture of food being served in a nearby school - but I can attest that the food pictured by Umaro is both actually tasty, and rather nutritious.

So if it IS about the money, then the system still is a good one, we just have to implement it with oversight.

 

[katautumn]

So what makes you as a parent more qualified in determining what's best for you child to eat than a dietician? On the dietitians side he went to school and studied specifically nutrition for years, and on your side you put rod A into slot B. There's nothing inherently in becoming a parent that teaches anyone how to raise a child. From everything I've seen and heard, it's mostly trial and error. So by what logic do you know best? The kid didn't die yet? I just don't see a reason to take your word over the experts.

Not to mention you still haven't addressed the abject failure of most parents. If parents know what's best for their kids, why are 2/3 overweight? They're doing a terrible job at it, so why should I think they know better than the nutritionist tasked with fixing the problem? If parents were so good, wouldn't they have not let it happen in the first place, or at least started to combat it?

What makes a person who does not have any children qualified to make decisions for other people's children, or even express opinions on parenting, for that matter? It's like when I got divorced at a young age and people who had never even been married, let alone suffered through the agony of a divorce, feeling at liberty to share all their opinions on how wrong divorce was or how I should have handled my marriage differently. It's like Drekkan claiming that parents shouldn't have any rights when it comes to parenting their children, and yet he openly admits he doesn't have children. I don't understand people who have never been in the position we, as parents, are in feeling emboldened to form such strong opinions.

Furthermore, what are we considering an abject failure that "most" parents are guilty of? Having overweight children? Do people even realize how asinine the criteria is for determining whether or not a person is clinically overweight? They go by the BMI, which is a horrendously flawed method in the first place. For example, my mother is 5'1" and weighs 135lbs. She is toned and fit, especially for her age. According to the BMI she is overweight. My husband, who is 6'4" and weighs 210lbs had a physical before he could enroll in his company's insurance plan. He has a bit of a tummy, but is in otherwise great shape with very broad shoulders and muscular arms and legs. They did a BMI calculation and the insurance provider sent him a brochure titled "Managing Your Morbid Obesity". We got a real laugh out of that one.

Anyway, the issue here isn't parenting. It's about people who don't even have children being all mad that people even dare to procreate in our "overpopulated world" and raising them with individual thoughts. It's much easier to prevent future generations from further contributing to this "overpopulation" by removing the rights of the parents, putting the kids in an environment where they will be taught educational basics, yes, but also the mindset of the radical progressive movement. Don't be confused, though. I'm not talking about liberals or Democrats. I'm talking about radical progressives. The people who think people should have to take tests in order to have kids and they should only be allowed to have on and that private education and home schooling should be outlawed and that if you give your kid a Bible or teach them about reading Tarot cards or anything of the sort you're abusing them spiritually. Crazy stuff out there with people wanting to usurp parental authority.

 

[Drekkan85]

What makes a person who does not have any children qualified to make decisions for other people's children, or even express opinions on parenting, for that matter?

A degree and decades of cumulative expertise in their fields.

It's like Drekkan claiming that parents shouldn't have any rights when it comes to parenting their children, and yet he openly admits he doesn't have children. I don't understand people who have never been in the position we, as parents, are in feeling emboldened to form such strong opinions.

And I don't think I should be the one deciding in the end what is being served. Why? Because I don't have a degree in pediatric nutrition or experience in the field. What I CAN do is suggest meal styles that ARE done in that style and provide for the health of the children in their care.

And again - I reject that parents should have "rights" - children aren't property that you can swap around like trading cards. They're distinct individual with (in Canada) Charter protected rights and interests. I have these opinions because I actually value children as human beings and generally DO form strong opinions when I'm discussing the rights of minors.

Furthermore, what are we considering an abject failure that "most" parents are guilty of? Having overweight children? Do people even realize how asinine the criteria is for determining whether or not a person is clinically overweight? They go by the BMI, which is a horrendously flawed method in the first place. For example, my mother is 5'1" and weighs 135lbs. She is toned and fit, especially for her age. According to the BMI she is overweight. My husband, who is 6'4" and weighs 210lbs had a physical before he could enroll in his company's insurance plan. He has a bit of a tummy, but is in otherwise great shape with very broad shoulders and muscular arms and legs. They did a BMI calculation and the insurance provider sent him a brochure titled "Managing Your Morbid Obesity". We got a real laugh out of that one.

Yes, there are a few exceptions (and I would advocate for a waiste measurement to go with BMI); however, for the majority of people BMI DOES provide a decent metric on their current physical shape. At this point I would point out that you cannot suck and blow at the same time. You have previously stated that "kids aren't in shape anymore - then spend all their time on the coach playing video games!" and then turn around and say "oh no - their BMI is probably all muscle they're likely just great athletes".

Anyway, the issue here isn't parenting. It's about people who don't even have children being all mad that people even dare to procreate in our "overpopulated world" and raising them with individual thoughts. It's much easier to prevent future generations from further contributing to this "overpopulation" by removing the rights of the parents, putting the kids in an environment where they will be taught educational basics,

I'm not angry about people "overpopulating the world" (though world population levels are somewhat concerning). It's not about "removing the rights of the parent" - it's about recognizing that children are important and vibrant individuals with a set of rights of their own and that parents are not some kind of despotic lord and master - but rather stewards of those rights.

yes, but also the mindset of the radical progressive movement. Don't be confused, though. I'm not talking about liberals or Democrats. I'm talking about radical progressives. The people who think people should have to take tests in order to have kids and they should only be allowed to have on and that private education and home schooling should be outlawed and that if you give your kid a Bible or teach them about reading Tarot cards or anything of the sort you're abusing them spiritually. Crazy stuff out there with people wanting to usurp parental authority.

And here we go into kook-ville. Given the discussions that Umaro and I had in our CEO pay thread I'm sure he'll be VERY surprised to find out that I'm apparently some kind of radical progressive. I'm certainly surprised by that. Should private schools be outlawed? Heck no (I even went to a private high school in Belgium after going to public school in Canada for elementary and middle schools). Should home schools be banned? Nope - home schools in certain situations are the best option available.

However, there must be oversight to protect the best interests of the children. Does that private school not teach a modern science curriculum? Does the home teacher mock or belittle proper evidence based scientific theories in favour of voodoo mumbo jumbo? Then the child should be removed from that situation as they're being denied the right to a basic education.

Giving tarot cards or bibles to your kids as abuse? I wouldn't say so explicitly - as long as you also explain the values and advantages of other belief structures and don't indoctrinate the child into your own. Allow the child to grow in a secular environment with all the various faith options open and presented equitably and then allow the child to make their own choice. If they're force fed one particular religious view their entire lives then they're nothing but slaves to that view - and is the faith of a slave really that valuable to either party? I'm personally thankful that my parents and family in general went through a rather non-committal faith period while I was a child. Only once I was much more adult, and capable of comparing and contrasting different religions and making an informed choice, did I find my way to Christ. And it was MY choice, it is MY faith. It is not faith that's been brainwashed into me from a young age.

Finally "Usurping parental authority". So tell me - as a parent should I be able to force my children to work in factories? Force them to marry someone they don't want to? Beat them? All of these things were "valid parental authority" until the "radical progressives" as you call them took a stand and said "No - that's not OK".

I'm terribly sorry that you see children as a piece of property - a thing that can be traded like a baseball card or used however you see fit. Your children are not your little dolls you can do with as you wish. Children have a whole suite of rights and your only "parental right" is to act to preserve those to the best of your ability - even if it's at the detriment of yourself.

 

[katautumn]

Having rights does not make you some despotic lord over your children, nor does it mean I see my son as my little slave or piece of property. For example, as a married woman I have rights in regard to my husband and vice versa. He is given the legal right to take me off of life support if I cannot be resuscitated from a comatose or vegetative state, and he knows that is my wish as it is his. If we had a child together and got divorced, he would be granted custody rights. While those are generally done in the best interest of the child, it also benefits the parents. Recognizing rights of parents doesn't mean you endorse child labor or abuse. That's a silly thing to assume.

 

[Drekkan85]

For example, as a married woman I have rights in regard to my husband and vice versa. He is given the legal right to take me off of life support if I cannot be resuscitated from a comatose or vegetative state, and he knows that is my wish as it is his.

To be clear her e- you have given him this right by entering into a contract for marriage. It is a right you have given him as a consenting adult. Your children have made no such concession to you.

If we had a child together and got divorced, he would be granted custody rights. While those are generally done in the best interest of the child, it also benefits the parents. Recognizing rights of parents doesn't mean you endorse child labor or abuse. That's a silly thing to assume.

Again - the custody rights aren't about rights in the Children - but rather a rights conflict between you and your husband over who has the obligation and privilege of being the primary care giver of the children. It's also worth noting that (at least in some jurisdictions) things that go along with this (such as child support) have that right attach to the children and not to the parent who has custody of the children.

And, as you indicated, the court makes its decision in the best interests of the child. To frame things in the "parental rights" frame puts you in a privileged position of power over the children and treats them as property (as you put it - if YOU don't like what the school is doing YOU Have the right to give them the finger - it was never put by you whether it was the children or their best interests that disagreed with the policy).

Rather, the proper way of thinking about anything related to Child Welfare is what is in the best interests of the child. As long as the parent acts as a steward, they're given some leeway and authority to act as an agent for that interest. However, when they start NOT acting int he child's best interests, the State must intervene to prevent harm to the child's long term well being. The greater and more immediate the harm, the stronger and faster the response must be. That's why a harm like this - which is subtle and long term in action - is best dealt with subtly and without direct intervention in the family structure (by, say, removing the kids).

The entire concept of "parental rights" is a holdover from the 19th century and earlier where things like labour and marriage were parental rights and determined by them alone. The person with the rights and standing here are not the parents, but the children.

 

[katautumn]

Okay, well, I'm done having this argument over parental rights. They exist whether your feel they should or shouldn't and, barring abusive and neglectful situations, those rights protect both the child and parents. No one gets to decide what may or may not be "harmful" to my son, so long as he is given full access to the things which sustain his life and foster his emotional and mental growth. Things like food, water, shelter, clothing and an education are all things children are given the inalienable rights to have access to. When a parent or guardian cannot provide these things, then the state must intervene to protect the child.

It's scary being a parent. And with the threat of everyone else trying to impose their beliefs and opinions on your children or having your kids taken from you for something that isn't abusive to begin with, it's even more terrifying.

 

[Umaro]

Now if they were smart they would try to create nutritious and tasty meals that kids would like and that could possibly improve the habits of kids with poor habits otherwise, that could impact 100% of the meals eaten.

I feel like Americans have entirely the wrong mindset on eating healthy. Have you ever looked at all the supposed "weight loss" and "health food options" in a supermarket, or even a dietician service? It's all things like "this looks and tastes like a cheeseburger, but we made it 'healthy!" America's common foods, by and large, are all absolutely terrible for you, but we have somehow convinced ourselves we can make healthy versions of them and keep eating the same foods. Nothing is ever going to change if we eat "healthy burgers" and "healthy pizza" for every meal. The cognitive dissonance we have is astounding.

What makes a person who does not have any children qualified to make decisions for other people's children, or even express opinions on parenting, for that matter? It's like when I got divorced at a young age and people who had never even been married, let alone suffered through the agony of a divorce, feeling at liberty to share all their opinions on how wrong divorce was or how I should have handled my marriage differently. It's like Drekkan claiming that parents shouldn't have any rights when it comes to parenting their children, and yet he openly admits he doesn't have children. I don't understand people who have never been in the position we, as parents, are in feeling emboldened to form such strong opinions.

As a person who has no kids, I'm not saying I'm qualified in the least to tell your children what to eat. However, I can say in full confidence that someone who has a degree as a pediatric dietitian knows better what children should eat than most parents, and they're the ones making the call.

Furthermore, what are we considering an abject failure that "most" parents are guilty of? Having overweight children? Do people even realize how asinine the criteria is for determining whether or not a person is clinically overweight? They go by the BMI, which is a horrendously flawed method in the first place. For example, my mother is 5'1" and weighs 135lbs. She is toned and fit, especially for her age. According to the BMI she is overweight. My husband, who is 6'4" and weighs 210lbs had a physical before he could enroll in his company's insurance plan. He has a bit of a tummy, but is in otherwise great shape with very broad shoulders and muscular arms and legs. They did a BMI calculation and the insurance provider sent him a brochure titled "Managing Your Morbid Obesity". We got a real laugh out of that one.

It's ironic you call out using the BMI to tell a population that 2/3 are overweight. Do you know the purpose of the BMI? Most people think it works on an individual basis, but it doesn't. Futhermore, it was never designed to. The designed purpose of the BMI is to predict populations weights. It's being used here exactly the right way.

But even ignoring that, we've got ambulances being replaced because they're too small. That alone should tell you we have an obesity problem.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Okay, well, I'm done having this argument over parental rights. They exist whether your feel they should or shouldn't and, barring abusive and neglectful situations, those rights protect both the child and parents. No one gets to decide what may or may not be "harmful" to my son, so long as he is given full access to the things which sustain his life and foster his emotional and mental growth.

So all the laws that say certain things are harmful to him don't actually exist? If you think it is ok he has sex with an adult, then that is just a-ok 'cause you have that right? Sorry, it don't work like that.

Things like food, water, shelter, clothing and an education are all things children are given the inalienable rights to have access to.

Can I assume you haven't studied the children living in the most extreme poverty? Then again, I guess it depends upon how you define these. To some a sack cloth is decent clothing.

When a parent or guardian cannot provide these things, then the state must intervene to protect the child.

It's scary being a parent. And with the threat of everyone else trying to impose their beliefs and opinions on your children or having your kids taken from you for something that isn't abusive to begin with, it's even more terrifying.

Who gets to define what is abusive? That is the core question.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Yeah, like the school has nutritious food.

 

[Umaro]

Yeah, like the school has nutritious food.

My school provided lunch here in Japan is healthier than what I eat on my own, and I eat pretty healthy anyways. It's certainly possible.

 

[Drekkan85]

My school provided lunch here in Japan is healthier than what I eat on my own, and I eat pretty healthy anyways. It's certainly possible.

I went to Japan and all I got was this t-shirt... and 30 pounds of weightloss and much better cardio fitness.

But seriously - lunch there was fantastic for the price (free) and quite nutritious.

 

[Umaro]

I went to Japan and all I got was this t-shirt... and 30 pounds of weightloss and much better cardio fitness.

But seriously - lunch there was fantastic for the price (free) and quite nutritious.

Mine's not quite free. I have to pay *gasp*....~$2.50 for a full meal.