• 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

Tucker Case said:
:rofl You dance around more than a guy with hemorrhoids at a gay orgy.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.
It is you who apparently can not distinguish between liking something, and thinking it is or isn't healthier.
The two are separate aspects.
 
Cardinal said:
You need to get your cause and effect straightened out. If kids are throwing away portions of their meal the fact that it's "lite" is obviously not a failure. What would support your position is if frigging nothing were thrown away, because that would suggest that a significant number of the students may very possibly not be getting enough calories. Food thrown away = not too few calories. Get it?
Click to expand...

Once again you're serving a variety of conflicting needs. Kids who are hungry, underfed. Kids who are fat, overfed. Kids who are active, kids who are sedentary. And what does it tell you when the trash can is full and the kids were of the hungry, underfed variety. When even the underfed won't touch it with a ten foot pole, you're off the track.
 
clownboy said:
It's already been shown that's not always the case. Regardless, not a federal decision, nor is it something the feds should be involved in. The local parents and schools should work this out. Michelle should stick to her inane food commercials on the Disney channel.
Click to expand...

I'm less impressed with local school boards who have made such demands as giving students 50% credit for work they didn't even do. But show me the federal mandate.
 
clownboy said:
Tucker my friend, you've obviously never surveyed children. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I have asked kids if they like broccoli. Kids don't tend to say they like something they don't out of fear they might be made to eat it.

When I was a kid, no amount of my parents telling me "Onions are good for you. Try them you'll like them!" got me to like onions. If my parents failed to "indoctrinate" me (and they'd force me to eat the onions) there's 0 chance some teacher the kid probably ****ing hates is going to succeed at making them like something they don't.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm less impressed with local school boards who have made such demands as giving students 50% credit for work they didn't even do. But show me the federal mandate.
Click to expand...

Do you think what we're talking about here is a locally funded and conceived program, really?
 
Excon said:
Wrong again.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I implied you try to dodge gay orgies. I did not intend to offend.

It is you who apparently can not distinguish between liking something, and thinking it is or isn't healthier.
The two are separate aspects.
Click to expand...

You are trying to say that when you said "After being indoctrinated throughout the school year that the lunches are so much better" You meant "better" to mean "better tasting" not "better for them". Do I have that right?
 
Tucker Case said:
It certainly implies that the kids doing the throwing away are not underfed or hungry.

It does imply that kids waste food, though, which implies their parents aren't doing a good job instilling good eating habits in them.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's another can of worms altogether. I was addressing the argument that the new standards are turning everyone into Starvin Marvin.
 
clownboy said:
Once again you're serving a variety of conflicting needs. Kids who are hungry, underfed. Kids who are fat, overfed. Kids who are active, kids who are sedentary. And what does it tell you when the trash can is full and the kids were of the hungry, underfed variety. When even the underfed won't touch it with a ten foot pole, you're off the track.
Click to expand...

Your assumption that students are going underfed as a result of the new program is just that, an assumption. You're pulling that out of your ass. Your other assumption, that kids are starving because they're throwing away food they won't eat? That also came from your ass. As a matter of fact, every single one of your arguments in this thread has had that same exact origin, including (but not limited to) the notion that kids can't bring in their own lunches. Please stop bringing forth arguments from your ass, and start sourcing them from something factual (not your ass).
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
I'm sorry if I implied you try to dodge gay orgies. I did not intend to offend.
Click to expand...
Compounding your false claim with an outright lie. Interesting?
That said; Neither offend me.


Tucker Case said:
You are trying to say that when you said "After being indoctrinated throughout the school year that the lunches are so much better" You meant "better" to mean "better tasting" not "better for them". Do I have that right?
Click to expand...
It was speaking to like of the lunches as perceived by a school administrator.

Not to the kids thinking it was healthier, which is different than liking.
 
Excon said:
Compounding your false claim with an outright lie. Interesting?
That said; Neither offend me.
Click to expand...

SO do you or do you not dodge gay orgies? I'm confused.


It was speaking to like of the lunches as perceived by a school administrator.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you simply don't know what indoctrinated means. Fair enough, thanks for admitting it finally.
 
Tucker Case said:
SO do you or do you not dodge gay orgies? I'm confused.
Click to expand...
Of course you are confused.
It has been clear from the start. And your false claim was addressed as being false.


Tucker Case said:
Ah, so you simply don't know what indoctrinated means. Fair enough, thanks for admitting it finally.
Click to expand...
Wrong again, as I already provided the definition.
 
Excon said:
It has been clear from the start.
Click to expand...

So you don't dodge them. Got it.



Wrong again, as I already provided the definition.
Click to expand...

Just because you can pretend to understand a definition does not mean you actually know what the word means. Hint: If the kids are indoctrinated, they actually believe they like it (The administrators beliefs have nothing to do with the kids' indoctrination).

You clearly don't know what the word means. You might be able to quote the definition, but you clearly cannot comprehend that definition, as evidenced by the way you chose to use the word. This is not a matter of opinion. Saying "Wrong again" repeatedly without actually demonstrating the statement to be wrong does not change reality, no matter how hard you wish it could. The reality is that you don't know how to use the word in an intelligent, correct manner.

Personally, I would blame it on the teachers who failed to "indoctrinate" you on how to use the English language at an adult level.
 
So what is really the hang up here? Should the federal government have the authority to dictate nutritional standards for public school lunches?

Is that what this whole thing boils down too?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
So what is really the hang up here? Should the federal government have the authority to dictate nutritional standards for public school lunches?

Is that what this whole thing boils down too?
Click to expand...

It's been doing that since the founding of the USDA.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
So what is really the hang up here? Should the federal government have the authority to dictate nutritional standards for public school lunches?

Is that what this whole thing boils down too?
Click to expand...

It'd probably be more accurate to say "standards for food served in public schools" more than "public school lunches". I believe students are free to bring their own lunches to public schools still.
 
Tucker Case said:
It'd probably be more accurate to say "standards for food served in public schools" more than "public school lunches". I believe students are free to bring their own lunches to public schools still.
Click to expand...

The counter to this is that there are two or three schools in the country that don't allow it.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
It'd probably be more accurate to say "standards for food served in public schools" more than "public school lunches". I believe students are free to bring their own lunches to public schools still.
Click to expand...

Cardinal said:
It's been doing that since the founding of the USDA.
Click to expand...

I'm failing to see what the problem is with public schools having to abide by federal nutritional standards.

I generally side with the conservative point of view but in this case, c'mon guys. Give it a rest. Don't like the food? Pack a lunch.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I'm failing to see what the problem is with public schools having to abide by federal nutritional standards.

I generally side with the conservative point of view but in this case, c'mon guys. Give it a rest. Don't like the food? Pack a lunch.
Click to expand...

Thank you for not adding to the crazy. I saw your lean and was admittedly a little nervous at first.
 
Cardinal said:
The counter to this is that there are two or three schools in the country that doesn't allow it.
Click to expand...

Then those local school districts need to change their rules, provided the parents in the school district have a problem with said rule.

This is where modern conservativism (i.e. the victim-mentality) meets the "personal responsibility" mentality (aka a more classic conservative mentality) and ****s the bed.

On one hand, a conservative would supposedly believe it is a parents duty to take personal responsibility over their child's nutrition. I do. My son could receive food at his day care, but instead I pack a lunch because I want him to eat what I want him to eat.

Here's the facts as I see them: If you decide you want the school to feed your kids, then you give up the right to complain about what they are fed.

If the school is providing the food, the food should adhere to reasonable health standards. If the parents are providing the food, it can be a tub of ice cream and piece of buttered cat **** for all I care.
 
Tucker Case said:
Then those local school districts need to change their rules, provided the parents in the school district have a problem with said rule.

This is where modern conservativism (i.e. the victim-mentality) meets the "personal responsibility" mentality (aka a more classic conservative mentality) and ****s the bed.

On one hand, a conservative would supposedly believe it is a parents duty to take personal responsibility over their child's nutrition. I do. My son could receive food at his day care, but instead I pack a lunch because I want him to eat what I want him to eat.

Here's the facts as I see them: If you decide you want the school to feed your kids, then you give up the right to complain about what they are fed.

If the school is providing the food, the food should adhere to reasonable health standards. If the parents are providing the food, it can be a tub of ice cream and piece of buttered cat **** for all I care.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's actually defended schools banning packed lunches. That's just a crappy policy through and through.

Sriracha sauce on cat **** would work too.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
Once again you're serving a variety of conflicting needs. Kids who are hungry, underfed. Kids who are fat, overfed. Kids who are active, kids who are sedentary. And what does it tell you when the trash can is full and the kids were of the hungry, underfed variety. When even the underfed won't touch it with a ten foot pole, you're off the track.
Click to expand...

Prove that the "hungry, underfed" students are throwing away their food, especially in large numbers. I highly doubt any child would throw away food if they are really hungry and underfed at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom