4 ms·

Given sufficient family finances, you can't really fix that without fixing the problem of neglectful or abusive parents.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
That's why I'm asking why can't we provide meals in the schools themselves so at minimum regardless of what's happening at home, children can eat.
- giantg2 4y ago
  That's just covering a symptom. Truly helping abused children means removing them from the environment of abuse.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    And while that's happening, the kids can eat at school. Removal is often a long process, and you can't rely on proper enforcement, even post-removal foster programs. None of this solves a kid being hungry at school. All I am asking is the minimum floor: Regardless of what's happening outside of school, in school a child can have food if they are hungry.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      This makes no sense since the same argument can be made about school lunches not being correctly enforced and allowing a child to go hungry because it does meet their dietary restrictions or other enforcement/implementing is flawed. If there are flaws in the overall system, then Mayne we should focus on treating those. Again, treat the causes, not the symptoms.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    We're not talking about abused children. We're talking about children from poor homes.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Please follow the context of this comment. This was about providing minimum income or otherwise providing money to parents to support their children.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        The GP was saying that if children arrive hungry for school, they're being abused by their parents; who should be arrested as criminals, and their children taken into care or adopted. Did you miss that bit of the context of the comment?
        giantg2 4y ago
        I don't see that anywhere. It seems you're misinterpreting, especially if you're not posting quotes. If the parents have the money (or access to programs that provide resources) and still choose to not properly feed or care for their kid, then perhaps the things you mention do fit. There's clearly case law that supports anyways.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Go to your local school. Offer to fund their lunch program for a semester or a year.
- humanrebar 4y ago
  You seemed to want to hear other perspectives and I provided one. And that's in contrast with most of the other replies which boil down to "conservatives are dumb or selfish". I'm not interested in debating politics on HN.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

That's why I'm asking why can't we provide meals in the schools themselves so at minimum regardless of what's happening at home, children can eat.

giantg2 4y ago
That's just covering a symptom. Truly helping abused children means removing them from the environment of abuse.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  And while that's happening, the kids can eat at school. Removal is often a long process, and you can't rely on proper enforcement, even post-removal foster programs. None of this solves a kid being hungry at school. All I am asking is the minimum floor: Regardless of what's happening outside of school, in school a child can have food if they are hungry.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    This makes no sense since the same argument can be made about school lunches not being correctly enforced and allowing a child to go hungry because it does meet their dietary restrictions or other enforcement/implementing is flawed. If there are flaws in the overall system, then Mayne we should focus on treating those. Again, treat the causes, not the symptoms.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  We're not talking about abused children. We're talking about children from poor homes.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Please follow the context of this comment. This was about providing minimum income or otherwise providing money to parents to support their children.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      The GP was saying that if children arrive hungry for school, they're being abused by their parents; who should be arrested as criminals, and their children taken into care or adopted. Did you miss that bit of the context of the comment?
      - giantg2 4y ago
        I don't see that anywhere. It seems you're misinterpreting, especially if you're not posting quotes. If the parents have the money (or access to programs that provide resources) and still choose to not properly feed or care for their kid, then perhaps the things you mention do fit. There's clearly case law that supports anyways.
vorpalhex 4y ago
Go to your local school. Offer to fund their lunch program for a semester or a year.
humanrebar 4y ago
You seemed to want to hear other perspectives and I provided one. And that's in contrast with most of the other replies which boil down to "conservatives are dumb or selfish". I'm not interested in debating politics on HN.