• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study Finds Elementary Students Like New Healthier Lunches

What would that have to do with whether or not the kids were actually indoctrinated?

You don't think the administrator is informed of what they indoctrinate the children about?
Odd.

So... right back to the question.
Do you think the administrators actually polled their students, or are reflecting their own personal beliefs?
 
You don't think the administrator is informed of what they indoctrinate the children about?
Odd.

So... right back to the question.
Do you think the administrators actually polled their students, or are reflecting their own personal beliefs?

Or, perhaps, simply observed the students at lunch and saw how much food was consumed and how much discarded? That would seem to me the best way to determine whether the kids liked the lunches or not.

As for "indoctrination", I really don't see the connection with school lunches, unless the claim is that they're being indoctrinated toward eating a healthy diet. If that's the case, then indoctrination is a good thing.
 
Or, perhaps, simply observed the students at lunch and saw how much food was consumed and how much discarded? That would seem to me the best way to determine whether the kids liked the lunches or not.
Or perhaps they are lying.

As for "indoctrination", I really don't see the connection with school lunches, unless the claim is that they're being indoctrinated toward eating a healthy diet. If that's the case, then indoctrination is a good thing.
It was about liking the food. Not thinking it was healthier.
 
Or perhaps they are lying.

Of course. Any time someone says something we don't want to hear, they are lying, even when they have no reason to do so.

It was about liking the food. Not thinking it was healthier.

Then, where did the issue of "indoctrination" come up at all?
 
Of course. Any time someone says something we don't want to hear, they are lying, even when they have no reason to do so.
The administrators were polled as to their opinion.
Do you honestly think they would want to reflect poorly on the program, or their school, or it's kids? I doubt it.

This is what you originally said.
Or, perhaps, simply observed the students at lunch and saw how much food was consumed and how much discarded? That would seem to me the best way to determine whether the kids liked the lunches or not.
The article reflected that such disposal was about the same as it previously was, except for rural schools where more was tossed.


Then, where did the issue of "indoctrination" come up at all?

So you don't think kids can be indoctrinated to express "like" for something?
Even peer pressure can work that way.
 
The administrators were polled as to their opinion.
Do you honestly think they would want to reflect poorly on the program, or their school, or it's kids? I doubt it.

This is what you originally said.
The article reflected that such disposal was about the same as it previously was, except for rural schools where more was tossed.




So you don't think kids can be indoctrinated to express "like" for something?
Even peer pressure can work that way.

I suppose you can be so indoctrinated. TV advertising does it all the time. What has that got to do with the school administrators? They weren't the ones saying that they liked the food, were they?
 
I suppose you can be so indoctrinated. TV advertising does it all the time. What has that got to do with the school administrators? They weren't the ones saying that they liked the food, were they?
They were saying the kids liked the food.
 
District drops federal lunch program

"The 2,800-student district joins a small but growing number of school districts across the country – mostly wealthy districts who can afford to forfeit the money – who have dropped out of the federal program in the wake of stricter nutritional standards.

Schools said students don't like the unsalted potatoes, low-fat cheese or the mandatory fruits and vegetables. They throw food away or decide not to eat at all."
 
These students should then be followed through life and be forced to pay higher insurance costs since they will be more unhealthy.
Poor choices leading to obesity and health problems should not be born by the body politic .
 
From the start, this whole Ultra Conservative hatred of the School Lunch Program was because of one thing and one thing only.

The person who pushed its last name was Obama.

That's about it.
 
From the start, this whole Ultra Conservative hatred of the School Lunch Program was because of one thing and one thing only.

The person who pushed its last name was Obama.

That's about it.
Prove your claim.
 
Prove your claim.

That's like asking me if the sky is blue.

The largely conservative blowback is pretty much based on that one fact alone and it's overwhelmingly evident because there is no reason whatsoever to argue against healthier food in schools unless it was politically motivated

There's absolutely no rational way you can argue against it.
 
That's like asking me if the sky is blue.
No it is not. So stop making false racist claims.


The largely conservative blowback is pretty much based on that one fact alone and it's overwhelmingly evident because there is no reason whatsoever to argue against healthier food in schools unless it was politically motivated

There's absolutely no rational way you can argue against it.
Wrong.

1. It is further Gov encroachment where they do not belong, especially as your child's health, or what they eat is none of the govs business.

And even as it were ...
2. The food was already healthy.

3. Healthy food doesn't have to taste bad.
 
That's like asking me if the sky is blue.

The largely conservative blowback is pretty much based on that one fact alone and it's overwhelmingly evident because there is no reason whatsoever to argue against healthier food in schools unless it was politically motivated

There's absolutely no rational way you can argue against it.

Or it could be that the program is a misguided failure.
 
Or it could be that the program is a misguided failure.

Except it isn't a failure. There is no evidence that children are really eating that much less (or really any less) food than in the past. There is no evidence that children are more unhappy with their food choices in school than they were before. Many people are basing their opinion of this off of the opinions of high schoolers (who are known to be resistant to changes and healthy food) and administrators who really are just making general assumptions. Even if some kids are more unhappy with their food choices than before, it doesn't mean that all are, nor does it mean that more children aren't happier with their healthier food choices. I guarantee some children are happier.
 
No it is not. So stop making false racist claims.
Wrong.

1. It is further Gov encroachment where they do not belong, especially as your child's health, or what they eat is none of the govs business.

And even as it were ...
2. The food was already healthy.

3. Healthy food doesn't have to taste bad.

First of all, you just proved his point since "further government encroachment" would still be a politically motivated reason to oppose healthier school lunches. Plus, this is the government's business since it is the government paying for the school lunch program or at providing additional funding for it in this case, that makes it their business.

Second, no most school lunches were not already healthy. And no, healthy food doesn't have to taste bad, but when it does it is a problem with the local administrations not trying to make the food taste good or at least better.
 
Study finds_____________ makes me happy as a mother****er...

Study finds that I can read from close up but have a difficult time reading from far away.

The point of the alleged "study" already moots the damn thing because it is too political.....

Whatever tho......
 
First of all, you just proved his point since "further government encroachment" would still be a politically motivated reason to oppose healthier school lunches.
No I didn't.
He said it was because of a name. As in opposing it simply because the name is Obama.
And that is false.
No one is opposing it because it comes from someone named Obama.
Saying that opposition is based on someones last name is nothing but a foolish comment and absurdly wrong.


Secondly he said; "There's absolutely no rational way you can argue against it." It being the changes.
Which is also wrong as shown.

So all you are doing is talking nonsense. A biased nonsense at that.


Plus, this is the government's business since it is the government paying for the school lunch program or at providing additional funding for it in this case, that makes it their business.
Bs. That doesn't make it their business. They force that and the only way to stop it is to stand up to it.
The gov could simply provide per pupil cost and let the school and the local parents figure it out.
But that just ignores their overreach to begin with. They shouldn't be involved at all.


Second, no most school lunches were not already healthy. And no, healthy food doesn't have to taste bad, but when it does it is a problem with the local administrations not trying to make the food taste good or at least better.
Yeah they were, they fell within the gov guidelines and the food groups.
And they were far more nutritious on a whole, as they were being eaten instead of tossed.
 
Oh, no, they're not opposing changes to the sixty plus year old school lunch program because someone named Obama is behind it, no. It's because someone who is a Democrat is behind it.

So, the logic goes, if the school administrators say that the kids like the new lunches, then they're either:
brainwashed, or
lying because they, too, are Democrats, or possibly
just don't know any better because as we all know, anything suggested by democrats is bad.

Even good nutrition is bad. The kids would be better off eating Republican Freedom Fries and vegetable catsup than the stuff that Democrats like.
 
Except it isn't a failure. There is no evidence that children are really eating that much less (or really any less) food than in the past. There is no evidence that children are more unhappy with their food choices in school than they were before. Many people are basing their opinion of this off of the opinions of high schoolers (who are known to be resistant to changes and healthy food) and administrators who really are just making general assumptions. Even if some kids are more unhappy with their food choices than before, it doesn't mean that all are, nor does it mean that more children aren't happier with their healthier food choices. I guarantee some children are happier.

It's a failure. Too many school lunches are ending up in the trash. It's a bribe to begin with.
 
No I didn't.
He said it was because of a name. As in opposing it simply because the name is Obama.
And that is false.
No one is opposing it because it comes from someone named Obama.
Saying that opposition is based on someones last name is nothing but a foolish comment and absurdly wrong.


Secondly he said; "There's absolutely no rational way you can argue against it." It being the changes.
Which is also wrong as shown.

So all you are doing is talking nonsense. A biased nonsense at that.


Bs. That doesn't make it their business. They force that and the only way to stop it is to stand up to it.
The gov could simply provide per pupil cost and let the school and the local parents figure it out.
But that just ignores their overreach to begin with. They shouldn't be involved at all.


Yeah they were, they fell within the gov guidelines and the food groups.
And they were far more nutritious on a whole, as they were being eaten instead of tossed.

Actually, there are plenty of people who are opposing it simply because it is supported by Obama, either the President or his wife. I can't say if you are or not. I don't know. But opposing it because you believe it is beyond the scope of the government's power to determine what should be served for lunch in the schools when the government is providing the money for those lunches for those government run schools is opposing it for political reasons, even if not the specific political concern in question in the earlier post.

Just because they fell within government guidelines does not mean that the food was healthy. Also, again, there is very little evidence that all the food, or even good portions of the healthy food is being thrown away, or large percentages of the students are throwing out the food. The "evidence" is anecdotal.
 
It's a failure. Too many school lunches are ending up in the trash. It's a bribe to begin with.

You can't prove that "too many school lunches are ending up in the trash". In fact, you can't prove that it is more lunches/food than before, especially for the younger grades. All the evidence right now is anecdotal.
 
Back
Top Bottom