Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Roger Bacon on October 23, 2013, 06:09:02 PM
-
(http://www.momdot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/federal1-600x450.jpg)
http://www.momdot.com/a-doctors-note-for-gmos/
-
wow, I would call stephanie and chew her ass out
-
Hahahaha, how anyone can take the left and this government seriously is beyond me. lmao.
-
Hahahaha, how anyone can take the left and this government seriously is beyond me. lmao.
If the note is real, it came from one misguided person, not the left, the right or the government. Get a grip.
-
Hahahaha, how anyone can take the left and this government seriously is beyond me. lmao.
Your an imbecile Coach so no surprise here.
-
If the note is real, it came from one misguided person, not the left, the right or the government. Get a grip.
Yea right, the left didn't have anything to do with it, just like they didn't have anything to do with banning pop and PB&J sandwiches. ::)
And it didn't come from one misguided person, it came from a lunatic leftwing $heeplebitchwhore; a control freak who thinks we should all do the exact same thing, forbid the norm.. .
And yea, I know, republicans pretty much fit this same bill today, can't argue against that.
-
Yea right, the left didn't have anything to do with it, just like they didn't have anything to do with banning pop and PB&J sandwiches. ::)
And it didn't come from one misguided person, it came from a lunatic leftwing $heeplebitchwhore; a control freak who thinks we should all do the exact same thing, forbid the norm.. .
And yea, I know, republicans pretty much fit this same bill today, can't argue against that.
This.
This absolutely has to do with the left and their ideology, which they pump into the education system as hard as they can
-
Hahahaha, how anyone can take the left and this government seriously is beyond me. lmao.
Obama wrote the note. Imagine that Obama isn't behind everything then you will get how they are taken seriously.
-
Yea right, the left didn't have anything to do with it, just like they didn't have anything to do with banning pop and PB&J sandwiches. ::)
And it didn't come from one misguided person, it came from a lunatic leftwing $heeplebitchwhore; a control freak who thinks we should all do the exact same thing, forbid the norm.. .
And yea, I know, republicans pretty much fit this same bill today, can't argue against that.
Delusional. Is all I can say.
This proposition is absurd. I think it may be an attempt to reduce allergic incidence which is problem, regardless a list of unacceptable foods based on allergies makes the most sense. I went to school with a girl who had to wear a face mask due to MCS, fish would send her into anaphylaxis.
Regardless Obama is to blame.
-
Delusional. Is all I can say.
This proposition is absurd. I think it may be an attempt to reduce allergic incidence which is problem, regardless a list of unacceptable foods based on allergies makes the most sense. I went to school with a girl who had to wear a face mask due to MCS, fish would send her into anaphylaxis.
Regardless Obama is to blame.
Its not delusional in the least...
-
Its not delusional in the least...
It certainly is if you think this is some leftist agenda to enforce assimilation and mindless automatons. It's an poorly executed idea and reflects this one persons view as mentioned above.
It's a bit paranoid actually.
If you think the motivation is conformity then you are delusional. I assume food is provided? if so, I can understand why food would be the same, it makes perfect fucking sense. I am not sure why food cannot be brought from home? health concerns? I know many schools adopt bans against particular foods, scents based on the population of kids.
It's a simple and childish view of the situation and is a microcosm of the intellectual honesty and process most people participate in.
-
this is the tricky part...
what do you do about the 1st grader that arrives to school with a mountain dew and a snickers bar, every day, in his lunch box?
The kid is 7. That's what mom puts in his lunch box. "Soda give me energy and peanuts in the snickers give me protein".
Now, he firmly believes it's a good lunch, cause that what mom says. It's a horrible lunch, and the kid is in trouble every afternoon for being hyper, not to mention the fcked up development physically he must be having from lunch, and probably breakfast and dinner being equally shitty.
The SOLUTION? The school lets him keep that lunch, they don't take it, but they ALSO give him a free school lunch to eat. He doesn't HAVE to eat the chicken and rice and applesauce and milk... but it's given to him. And usually, the kid will smell the meat and nibble on the free lunch too, and at least get some nutrition.
I was a teacher for 7 years - and it's NOT about some "we want to control your children". It's more about "this poor 7 year old is hungry every day cause mom sends a water bottle and a cookie, and nothing else". What this school is doing is stupid, way overboard, but the overall argument "school shuoldn't give my kid a free lunch", well, the kid should have all the nutrients he needs to grow too.
-
this is the tricky part...
what do you do about the 1st grader that arrives to school with a mountain dew and a snickers bar, every day, in his lunch box?
The kid is 7. That's what mom puts in his lunch box. "Soda give me energy and peanuts in the snickers give me protein".
Now, he firmly believes it's a good lunch, cause that what mom says. It's a horrible lunch, and the kid is in trouble every afternoon for being hyper, not to mention the fcked up development physically he must be having from lunch, and probably breakfast and dinner being equally shitty.
The SOLUTION? The school lets him keep that lunch, they don't take it, but they ALSO give him a free school lunch to eat. He doesn't HAVE to eat the chicken and rice and applesauce and milk... but it's given to him. And usually, the kid will smell the meat and nibble on the free lunch too, and at least get some nutrition.
I was a teacher for 7 years - and it's NOT about some "we want to control your children". It's more about "this poor 7 year old is hungry every day cause mom sends a water bottle and a cookie, and nothing else". What this school is doing is stupid, way overboard, but the overall argument "school shuoldn't give my kid a free lunch", well, the kid should have all the nutrients he needs to grow too.
I think the original idea is better, in this scenario food waste would be high and it's pretty unethical when you are aware that many people are starving. Promotion of a healthy diet should be enforced, it helps all areas including the economy. Having a generation of hyperactive, ill kids who progress to sick, shitty adults will put an enormous burden on healthcare and tank productivity.
I don't think enforcing proper nutrition in children is bad, it should be the case.
-
I think the original idea is better, in this scenario food waste would be high and it's pretty unethical when you are aware that many people are starving. Promotion of a healthy diet should be enforced, it helps all areas including the economy. Having a generation of hyperactive, ill kids who progress to sick, shitty adults will put an enormous burden on healthcare and tank productivity.
I don't think enforcing proper nutrition in children is bad, it should be the case.
We don't allow children to make up their own math facts. We don't let them read/write in their own made-up language. And these are just skills. We don't let them wear shorts when it's 15 degrees out.
When it comes to nutrition, these are the building blocks of their BODY, not their mind. We're talking about bone and muscle growth. And their performance is completely dependent upon what they eat.
See, the people rebelling, "Stay out of my kids' lunchbox", are pissed about govt involvement in the lives of people, which is fine. But we're talking kids... little kids... when they get to high school, they can buy a cookie and a Hawaiin Punch for lunch, and many of them do... but when they're 7? Come on. the school district hires nutritionists to make sure the school lunches cover all the bases. take it or leave it, but give the kid the option. As a teacher, I often had lunch room duty and it sickened me, seeing the kid with the cookie and juice box staring at the chicken tenders, wishing he had actual sustenance, but hey, mom knows better, nobody is telling me how to raise my kid.... Shit, take the free lunch IN ADDITION and enjoy the buffet already :)
-
We don't allow children to make up their own math facts. We don't let them read/write in their own made-up language. And these are just skills. We don't let them wear shorts when it's 15 degrees out.
When it comes to nutrition, these are the building blocks of their BODY, not their mind. We're talking about bone and muscle growth. And their performance is completely dependent upon what they eat.
See, the people rebelling, "Stay out of my kids' lunchbox", are pissed about govt involvement in the lives of people, which is fine. But we're talking kids... little kids... when they get to high school, they can buy a cookie and a Hawaiin Punch for lunch, and many of them do... but when they're 7? Come on. the school district hires nutritionists to make sure the school lunches cover all the bases. take it or leave it, but give the kid the option. As a teacher, I often had lunch room duty and it sickened me, seeing the kid with the cookie and juice box staring at the chicken tenders, wishing he had actual sustenance, but hey, mom knows better, nobody is telling me how to raise my kid.... Shit, take the free lunch IN ADDITION and enjoy the buffet already :)
youth in asia is the only option. sp?
-
Yea right, the left didn't have anything to do with it, just like they didn't have anything to do with banning pop and PB&J sandwiches. ::)
And it didn't come from one misguided person, it came from a lunatic leftwing $heeplebitchwhore; a control freak who thinks we should all do the exact same thing, forbid the norm.. .
And yea, I know, republicans pretty much fit this same bill today, can't argue against that.
I worked for a school district until I retired. I have some experience with school lunch programs. PB&J sandwiches may have been discontinued because they were given to kids who weren't on a free lunch program and whose parents didn't pay the school for their lunches or pack them one. Rather then turn a kid away who didn't have the price of a lunch (repeatedly) they were given PB&J sandwiches and milk. Some parents complained that this stigmatized their kids (probably the same parents that weren't giving their kids money for lunch). When I retired, the staff donated their own money to help offset the school lunch cost for a kid whose parents didn't provide for them by either giving them money or packing them a lunch.
-
Promotion of a healthy diet should be enforced, it helps all areas including the economy
I don't think enforcing proper nutrition in children is bad, it should be the case.
why hello there, every tyrant in history.
enforce proper nutrition.... I.e., take away an individuals freedom to eat what they so choose (or a parents freedom to parent their chikd how they see fit)
I lose a little faith in humanity every day.
-
why hello there, every tyrant in history.
enforce proper nutrition.... I.e., take away an individuals freedom to eat what they so choose (or a parents freedom to parent their chikd how they see fit)
I lose a little faith in humanity every day.
Parents are apparently doing a really great job feeding their kids, just about as great as they are feeding themselves these days. Yeah right. Look around you. The world keeps getting fatter. Enforce might be too strong a word, but strongly encourage is definitely in order. When it comes to kids, they will eat what they've been taught to eat. Teach them right and they will eat right. If we only eat what we chose and we have poor reference for that choice, we lose and it isn't pounds we lose it is our good health.
-
Parents are apparently doing a really great job feeding their kids, just about as great as they are feeding themselves these days. Yeah right. Look around you. The world keeps getting fatter. Enforce might be too strong a word, but strongly encourage is definitely in order. When it comes to kids, they will eat what they've been taught to eat. Teach them right and they will eat right. If we only eat what we chose and we have poor reference for that choice, we lose and it isn't pounds we lose it is our good health.
there is no justifiable way to tell someone they cant send their kids with thr lunch they want to feed their child. Encourage and education is one thing. But telling someone they cant choose what to feed thwir child is ridiculous and is the same kind of bullsbit that every tyrant in history has used to justify the oppression of freedom.
its no ones responsibility but the parents. If they fail, they fucking fail, its not up to the school or you or anyone else to decide what to feed themselves or their children.
fuck you and anyone else that thinks theyre somehow justified in telling others the right way to parent their children.
-
yup I knew the typical liberal shit baggery would float to the top in this discussion.
"the kids, the kids, wont someone think about the CHILDREN!!!!"
if kids have allergies there needs to be rules about sharing lunches not preventing kids from bringing lunches. If parents cant afford to feed their kids there are programs to help with that, it shouldnt prevent anyone else from sending their child to school with a lunch. If they parents of that "starving child" arent smart enough to stand up and apply for the readily available assistance programs well that child has a shit load more issues facing them than lunch...
you libtard morons will justify anything
-
why hello there, every tyrant in history.
enforce proper nutrition.... I.e., take away an individuals freedom to eat what they so choose (or a parents freedom to parent their chikd how they see fit)
I lose a little faith in humanity every day.
Nah. Don't lose faith in democracy. He lives in a socialist country. They have a different outlook on life.
-
its no ones responsibility but the parents. If they fail, they fucking fail, its not up to the school or you or anyone else to decide what to feed themselves or their children.
fuck you and anyone else that thinks theyre somehow justified in telling others the right way to parent their children.
yup a big FUCK YOU to the retards who support this
-
If you can send your kids to private school, or home school you really should.
-
why hello there, every tyrant in history.
enforce proper nutrition.... I.e., take away an individuals freedom to eat what they so choose (or a parents freedom to parent their chikd how they see fit)
I lose a little faith in humanity every day.
For an educational institution to enforce (teach) proper human (we are animal) nutrition is being a tyrant? Listen, people can do as they like but when we live in a collectivist society where poor eating habits effect the collective being (obesity, taxes). We teach people how to act appropriately in public ( indirectly inhibiting self expression) yet I doubt this is tyrant like. I think encourage but if the school is providing lunch it should be nothing but healthy, otherwise it;s a disservice.
I may have be misspoke or made a mistake because I was referring to the school.
-
yup a big FUCK YOU to the retards who support this
7
So you think feeding a human child poor nutrition when we know the consequences is not justifying telling the person about such a poor choice. Listen good parenting isn't up the interpreter there are basic things, like feed, cloth and care for the child
-
yup I knew the typical liberal shit baggery would float to the top in this discussion.
"the kids, the kids, wont someone think about the CHILDREN!!!!"
if kids have allergies there needs to be rules about sharing lunches not preventing kids from bringing lunches. If parents cant afford to feed their kids there are programs to help with that, it shouldnt prevent anyone else from sending their child to school with a lunch. If they parents of that "starving child" arent smart enough to stand up and apply for the readily available assistance programs well that child has a shit load more issues facing them than lunch...
you libtard morons will justify anything
I dont think anyone is justifying the a-hole policy of the original post - doctors note. That's crap and I think most know it. Just plain stupid. Horrible policy.
As long as the school offers a skeleton lunch - milk, meat, some fruit - in addition to whatever can of Sprite and chips ahoy mom sends, it's fine.
-
there is no justifiable way to tell someone they cant send their kids with thr lunch they want to feed their child. Encourage and education is one thing. But telling someone they cant choose what to feed thwir child is ridiculous and is the same kind of bullsbit that every tyrant in history has used to justify the oppression of freedom.
its no ones responsibility but the parents. If they fail, they fucking fail, its not up to the school or you or anyone else to decide what to feed themselves or their children.
fuck you and anyone else that thinks theyre somehow justified in telling others the right way to parent their children.
Apparently your comprehension skills are lacking. You're response is so over-the-top with regards to what I posted. Maybe your parents didn't feed you right and it messed up your thought processes.
-
7
So you think feeding a human child poor nutrition when we know the consequences is not justifying telling the person about such a poor choice. Listen good parenting isn't up the interpreter there are basic things, like feed, cloth and care for the child
and what does that have to do with not being able to send a child to school with a lunch moron?
-
Apparently your comprehension skills are lacking. You're response is so over-the-top with regards to what I posted. Maybe your parents didn't feed you right and it messed up your thought processes.
Quite frankly I merely glossed over your post and my reply was only partially directed at you.
-
For an educational institution to enforce (teach) proper human (we are animal) nutrition is being a tyrant? Listen, people can do as they like but when we live in a collectivist society where poor eating habits effect the collective being (obesity, taxes). We teach people how to act appropriately in public ( indirectly inhibiting self expression) yet I doubt this is tyrant like. I think encourage but if the school is providing lunch it should be nothing but healthy, otherwise it;s a disservice.
I may have be misspoke or made a mistake because I was referring to the school.
Enforce and teach are 2 completely different things.
Saying that you support enforcing proper nutrition 8s a far cry from saying you support educating people on proper nutrition.
Enforce = using authority to force someone to follow a particular law or rule.
-
Here in scandinavia and i guess rest of the europe to we dont send lunch with the kids cause they get it at school. All eag the same food that is served besides those with allergies. They dont forbid people to send lunch with there kids but noone does it anyway cause its not a problem the kids get what they need and everhone is happy. Never heard of one single complaint about the system, never. But thats just how we do and have done for a long time
-
Here in scandinavia and i guess rest of the europe to we dont send lunch with the kids cause they get it at school. All eag the same food that is served besides those with allergies. They dont forbid people to send lunch with there kids but noone does it anyway cause its not a problem the kids get what they need and everhone is happy. Never heard of one single complaint about the system, never. But thats just how we do and have done for a long time
It's the same here, I would imagine 90% or more get the school lunch.
That's not the point though.
-
It's the same here, I would imagine 90% or more get the school lunch.
That's not the point though.
aha ok was under the impression that 0% had scool lunch. My bad carry on
-
Here in scandinavia and i guess rest of the europe to we dont send lunch with the kids cause they get it at school. All eag the same food that is served besides those with allergies. They dont forbid people to send lunch with there kids but noone does it anyway cause its not a problem the kids get what they need and everhone is happy. Never heard of one single complaint about the system, never. But thats just how we do and have done for a long time
I have no problem as long as the parents have the option. We seem to have an obsession in this countey with telling parents how to raise their kids, and it rrally irritates me.
this goes for BOTH parties.
-
Quite frankly I merely glossed over your post and my reply was only partially directed at you.
I see. What I don't get then, is why quote me if you aren't directing the post my way.
-
I dislike the parents that say "Don't be giving my kid any food, I'll feed him whatever I want" and then they send garbage.
What do you do in situations like that? No allergies, no religious conflict - They just send Junior with beef jerky and a bottle of root beer for 1st grade on... and "it's my kid, I know better...." No, you're a backwoods hillbilly dropout in Oklahoma... the state nutritionist went to school for a very long time to know what foods will make your kid grow and develop properly, and we're offering it for free.
I'm just glad no getbiggers have gone so extreme as to defend that. Nutrition of kids is what's important, not some ego contest with "the system".
-
I have no problem as long as the parents have the option. We seem to have an obsession in this countey with telling parents how to raise their kids, and it rrally irritates me.
this goes for BOTH parties.
yeah i understand. Just said how it was here.
-
Enforce and teach are 2 completely different things.
Saying that you support enforcing proper nutrition 8s a far cry from saying you support educating people on proper nutrition.
Enforce = using authority to force someone to follow a particular law or rule.
Yes in school they should enforce it, it's an educational institution that should promote healthy eating. There is no reason to eat unhealthy except desire and want. Why should a school offer unhealthy options?
-
WAIT - rereading this... It's for PRE school? That changes everything. They're private companies. For-profit. They COST money to attend. They're essentially DAYCARE centers. Totally different from public schools.
anyone who has had a kid in pre-school will know....
it's WAY easier to just have the dude scoop out chicken nuggets, corn and applasauce for 20 three-year-olds, than open up lunchables, watch for choking, stop the kids from fighting, etc etc. Kids are a pain in the ass with lunches, and yeah, at 3-4 years old, they'll steal from each other.
and since pre-schools (at least in florida) are private businesses, not run by the state, well, I guess we can STFU about Obama hating on our rights and all that. If you don't like it, take your $ to another pre-school.
-
I think it may be an attempt to reduce allergic incidence which is problem, regardless a list of unacceptable foods based on allergies makes the most sense. I went to school with a girl who had to wear a face mask due to MCS, fish would send her into anaphylaxis.
Yeah -- because when I was at school - a few kids would always drop dead when I opened my sandwich box.
-
and what does that have to do with not being able to send a child to school with a lunch moron?
You make the connection genius. Fuck, besides encouraging people to make your argument for you, you also seem unable to think for yourself as well.
-
You make the connection genius. Fuck, besides encouraging people to make your argument for you, you also seem unable to think for yourself as well.
The point is shut in that there is no relevant connection to your ignorant rambling.
If has no bearing on why an individual shouldn't be allowed to brim their own lunch from home.
-
The point is shut in that there is no relevant connection to your ignorant rambling.
If has no bearing on why an individual shouldn't be allowed to brim their own lunch from home.
::)
-
::)
go ahead brain child, explain the relevance
-
I have no problem as long as the parents have the option. We seem to have an obsession in this countey with telling parents how to raise their kids, and it rrally irritates me.
this goes for BOTH parties.
It may seem inconsequential to some but that's how it starts. You strip away the power of the family and the parent to make decisions for their kids/family unit. Replace the family unit decision making power with that of a larger institution, i.e. the government. Soon after, more choice and decision making ability will be stripped away...
-
Yes in school they should enforce it, it's an educational institution that should promote healthy eating. There is no reason to eat unhealthy except desire and want. Why should a school offer unhealthy options?
Wow.......
You're basically saying that the state should be responsible for deciding what peoples children eat.
And yet you don't see the correlation with every dictator in history.
Sigh.
-
Wow.......
You're basically saying that the state should be responsible for deciding what peoples children eat.
And yet you don't see the correlation with every dictator in history.
Sigh.
Within the school? an institution of learning? No I don't see the correlation, I am saying that if you send your kid to a public school, they should do nothing but teach quality habits and enforce particular norms. For example you aren't allowed talking when others are talking in class, you are expected to be quiet and listen to the teacher, these are all infringements. Should schools not enforce proper social etiquette, or is your outrage selective because it's food.
Stupid decisions shouldn't be glorified but vilified. I think feeding a kid a poor diet, knowing the consequences is tantamount to abuse. The states are seeing the fallout of this, rapid increases in mental disorders, developmental disorders like AHDD.
I am not suggesting they can't do it in their personal lives, but I do think school should strive for excellence and enforce proper social behaviour, maturity, nutrition and education.
I am being cheeky when I say I don't see the correlation, I do, however, teachers have to deal with these kids too and I see nothing but positives from proper nutrition. Could you give me an argument to the contrary based on fact not presupposed assumptions?
-
WAIT - rereading this... It's for PRE school? That changes everything. They're private companies. For-profit. They COST money to attend. They're essentially DAYCARE centers. Totally different from public schools.
anyone who has had a kid in pre-school will know....
it's WAY easier to just have the dude scoop out chicken nuggets, corn and applasauce for 20 three-year-olds, than open up lunchables, watch for choking, stop the kids from fighting, etc etc. Kids are a pain in the ass with lunches, and yeah, at 3-4 years old, they'll steal from each other.
and since pre-schools (at least in florida) are private businesses, not run by the state, well, I guess we can STFU about Obama hating on our rights and all that. If you don't like it, take your $ to another pre-school.
I'll step up and argue that. Sure, Mom's decision to send soda and candy is bad nutritionally, but where do you draw the line?
Either parents are parents and have the right to make decisions for their children, or parents are just DNA donors and the child is the ward of the State. Choose which you prefer because you can't have your cake and eat it too.
It is ridiculous for a school to require a doctor's note for a packed lunch - at any age - or to force a kid to eat the crap that's being served ("pizza counts as a vegetable children!"). As a matter of fact it is ridiculous that schools would seek to undermine parental authority.
This isn't about who knows best. It's about whether parents are parents and about what that means.
-
I'll step up and argue that. Sure, Mom's decision to send soda and candy is bad nutritionally, but where do you draw the line?
Either parents are parents and have the right to make decisions for their children, or parents are just DNA donors and the child is the ward of the State. Choose which you prefer because you can't have your cake and eat it too.
It is ridiculous for a school to require a doctor's note for a packed lunch - at any age - or to force a kid to eat the crap that's being served ("pizza counts as a vegetable children!"). As a matter of fact it is ridiculous that schools would seek to undermine parental authority.
This isn't about who knows best. It's about whether parents are parents and about what that means.
In the eyes of normal/non-insane people it's wrong...but as I mentioned above, undermining and attempting to replace/discredit family authority and other traditional cultural authoritative structures is exactly what government seeks to do. Break the link and replace it.
-
I'll step up and argue that. Sure, Mom's decision to send soda and candy is bad nutritionally, but where do you draw the line?
Either parents are parents and have the right to make decisions for their children, or parents are just DNA donors and the child is the ward of the State. Choose which you prefer because you can't have your cake and eat it too.
It is ridiculous for a school to require a doctor's note for a packed lunch - at any age - or to force a kid to eat the crap that's being served ("pizza counts as a vegetable children!"). As a matter of fact it is ridiculous that schools would seek to undermine parental authority.
This isn't about who knows best. It's about whether parents are parents and about what that means.
We let parents spank kids, ground kids, take away their toys, as punishment. But we don't allow parents to chop off their hands as punishment.
So yeah, we do "draw the line" somewhere. We draw the line on EVERYTHING in society, and that's the nature of society - you need rules in place to keep people from robbing, killing one another.
What if mom sends cigs? What if mom sends jack daniels? What if mom sends a 5 pound bag of SUGAR and the kid just snorts it? What if mom sends cookies that expired ten years ago?
The point is.... eventually, ALL of us will agree at SOME point, it's okay to intervene.
-
In the eyes of normal/non-insane people it's wrong...but as I mentioned above, undermining and attempting to replace/discredit family authority and other traditional cultural authoritative structures is exactly what government seeks to do. Break the link and replace it.
In Oregon, there is a religious group known as the Followers of Christ. Part of their religious beliefs include not seeking the help of a doctor or hospital for illness or injury but rather praying over the victim. Unfortunately, some of their children have died as a result of this practice. The courts have found the parents criminally responsible for their children's dead.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2013/06/court_rejects_appeal_from_oreg.html
-
We let parents spank kids, ground kids, take away their toys, as punishment. But we don't allow parents to chop off their hands as punishment.
So yeah, we do "draw the line" somewhere. We draw the line on EVERYTHING in society, and that's the nature of society - you need rules in place to keep people from robbing, killing one another.
Right, we draw the line at the point where the person's fundamental and inalienable rights are violated. That's a long line away from food choices.
What if mom sends cigs? What if mom sends jack daniels? What if mom sends a 5 pound bag of SUGAR and the kid just snorts it? What if mom sends cookies that expired ten years ago?
And what if your grandma had wheels? You can come with many silly hypotheticals - it's the nature of the beast. And although I don't particularly care to debunk strawman arguments, I do have a few points to make:
My opinions on alcohol are unconventional; I do not drink, but I find the puritanical and naive attitude towards alcohol that most Americans have to be stupid. I see little harm in allowing children to sample alcohol in controlled circumstances with the approval of their parents. In fact, I see benefits: demystifying a product that is withheld from them, which forces them to seek it out and consume it in a careless fashion.
Unlike you I believe that parents should, in he absence of compelling and overwhelming evidence that they are harming their children be given a wide berth that aren't forced to operate within the confines of what some politicians, some social workers or some nutritionists think.
Unlike you I believe that people are capable of making rational decisions and that should not be compelled to go against their better judgement.
Will people make mistakes? Undoubtedly. But I much prefer that over the alternative of a State-mandated program of child upbringing.
It is stupid to prohibit parents from packing their own lunch without the approval of a doctor; not only is it a ridiculous overreach, but it's offensive.
I know you're very concerned about the mother that packs cigarettes, alcohol, bags of sugars and expired cookies. But I submit to you that many more mothers pack good, nutritious foods that are orders of magnitude better than the shit that cafeterias out out - at a cost of a few pennies per student. So I find your argument silly.
The point is.... eventually, ALL of us will agree at SOME point, it's okay to intervene.
But this isn't that point. The point is when you can objectively demonstrate that the action (or inaction)9; the parent is violating the child's fundamental rights and interests.
Spanking your child doesn't. Cutting their hands off does.
Letting your kid gorge on trick-or-treat candy doesn't. Forcing him to eat rat poison does.
It's really not a difficult concept.