4 ms·

You can want kids to be fed and fully believe that the government giving out free meal to all kids will eventually lead to kids not being feed. I can think of l

You can want kids to be fed and fully believe that the government giving out free meal to all kids will eventually lead to kids not being feed. I can think of lots of arguments Budgets might be cut directly, so can not feed some percent, budgets might be cut indirectly (less tax revenue). Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient. The "give a man a fish he eats for day, teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime", type of thinking. Some people might believe it encourages parents to be irresponsible. Back to budgets, it might remove money from other school needs. I guess the thinking would be, schools should teach, food is not their responsibility. If it comes their responsibility then they'll do less teaching which is back to not helping make their students able to ultimately fend for themselves but instead makes them dependent. I'm not saying I buy those arguments but I can see them as valid arguments. Helping directly is not always helpful. There's plenty of examples of that. Whether that's true in this case I don't know.

overfeed 2y ago
> Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient To be clear, the subject is still children, right? Refusing to feed children to "teach" them self-sufficiency is, IMO, right up there with a non-ironic "the children yearn for the mines". What could a self-sufficient 6th-grader even do for money? Steal baby food and small electronics from Target for fencing?
- walthamstow 2y ago
  Well, I learnt a new Americanism today. Fence, verb, meaning to shift stolen goods. Upon first read I thought they would be sword fighting with stolen bluetooth speakers.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    an accelerometer and a speaker are needed for those lightsaber sounds
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >Fence, verb, meaning to shift stolen goods. Does it not also have that meaning in commonwealth countries?
    - walthamstow 2y ago
      I'd never heard it before, from googling it seems to be antiquated language in Britain.
      - Symbiote 2y ago
        I (British) am familiar with the term, especially as a verb like "fencing stolen goods". You can find British newspapers reporting this in the last decade. The legal term since 1968 seems to be "Handling Stolen Goods", which might have made the word "fencing" less common: https://mcgeemcgeeagarlaw.co.uk/criminal-defence/handling-stolen-goods-solicitors/ https://mcgeemcgeeagarlaw.co.uk/criminal-defence/handling-st...
      - kjkjadksj 2y ago
        Must have never played an elder scrolls game huh
      - Philpax 2y ago
        You've gotta watch more Guy Ritchie movies.
- socalgal2 2y ago
  No, the subject is society at large. Save kids today, get a society that can't function in the future, more kids die Asked ChatGPT for examples: https://markdownpastebin.com/?id=86c19b00a4ce4ff1aa3d2d5cb473ed2d https://markdownpastebin.com/?id=86c19b00a4ce4ff1aa3d2d5cb47... Note, I'm not saything this is how it is. Nor am I saying I believe free school lunches are bad. I'm saying the position that they are bad is a valid defendable position to take.
lurkshark 2y ago
I think the rebuttal to the majority of these arguments is “So you want children to go hungry to prove a point?”
boneitis 2y ago
I feel it on those concerns, though after all, I think the point of some people's stances is that everybody should be able to take free (and dignified) student lunches for granted, as sensible as the fish-vs-how-to-fish adage is in general. I think the concern about entitlement better applies when looking out for vultures taking advantage of these campaigners' goodwill by trying to wedge themselves into the middle of any cashflow for as-optimizably-marginal-as-possible contribution to those pipelines. Of course, I'm thinking of this more in some context of if there was a sort of centralized campaign to scale up efforts, say, statewide or nationwide (pardon my U.S-centric perspective), to solicit donations to pay off a bunch of schools' lunch debts in a region.
- wredcoll 2y ago
  > I think the concern about entitlement better applies when looking out for vultures taking advantage of these campaigners' goodwill by trying to wedge themselves into the middle of any cashflow for as-optimizably-marginal-as-possible contribution to those pipelines. Of course, I'm thinking of this more in some context of if there was a sort of centralized campaign to scale up efforts, say, statewide or nationwide (pardon my U.S-centric perspective), to solicit donations to pay off a bunch of schools' lunch debts in a region. What on earth does this paragraph have to do with the position that school children should receive free lunch?
rienbdj 2y ago
In the specific case of free school meals: - economies of scale in feeding an entire school - recipients of the benefit (children) and delivery mechanism (kitchens) are already at the right place and time - can guarantee money is spent on food rather than (for example) a parents gambling addiction - reduces stigma for poor children to have universality - can (in theory) deliver better food using school cooking facilities - saves time even for parents who can afford to feed children - teaching a hungry child is an uphill battle
qmr 2y ago
Yes those little shit free loading five year olds. Whining about lunch when they should be in the mines.
- vel0city 2y ago
  Need to start charging my toddler market rate rent. No more free rides, I ain't raising woke communist kids!
kerkeslager 1y ago
> Budgets might be cut directly, so can not feed some percent, budgets might be cut indirectly (less tax revenue). Stop talking as if there's no human actor involved in this. If budgets are cut (less tax revenue) it's because the same people who oppose feeding kids oppose taxing rich people. This is just people saying, "We can't feed kids, because we might decide to not tax rich people instead." I'm not confused about this possibility or missing this possibility: I'm saying "don't be an asshole, collect enough taxes to feed the kids". > Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient. Stop talking about "people" as if you've forgotten these are children. Kids should feel entitled to eat, because children are entitled to receive food. Obviously we should be preparing them to learn to feed themselves as adults--nobody is confused about that--but it's going to be a whole lot harder for a child to learn if they're unsure about their next meal. And again, it's the same people who oppose school lunches who oppose education programs. Giving a child a fish and teaching the child to fish are not mutually exclusive. And US conservatives oppose both. > Back to budgets, it might remove money from other school needs. I guess the thinking would be, schools should teach, food is not their responsibility. If it comes their responsibility then they'll do less teaching which is back to not helping make their students able to ultimately fend for themselves but instead makes them dependent. Again, stop pretending there's no actors doing this. It's conservatives who are creating these artificially constrained budgets. It's conservatives who are not allocating enough money to both feed and educate children. I'm simply not interested in any argument which involves pretending there isn't enough money to feed children. There is enough money, you simply don't think feeding children is important enough to collect taxes to do it. I'm simply not interested in arguments about who should be feeding children. I want the federal government to fund schools to feed children because that's the only viable path to all the children in my country being fed on the table at the moment. You haven't presented any alternatives that work, and you won't, because you are more interested in avoiding taxes than you are in feeding children.

overfeed 2y ago

> Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient To be clear, the subject is still children, right? Refusing to feed children to "teach" them self-sufficiency is, IMO, right up there with a non-ironic "the children yearn for the mines". What could a self-sufficient 6th-grader even do for money? Steal baby food and small electronics from Target for fencing?

walthamstow 2y ago
Well, I learnt a new Americanism today. Fence, verb, meaning to shift stolen goods. Upon first read I thought they would be sword fighting with stolen bluetooth speakers.
- em-bee 2y ago
  an accelerometer and a speaker are needed for those lightsaber sounds
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >Fence, verb, meaning to shift stolen goods. Does it not also have that meaning in commonwealth countries?
  - walthamstow 2y ago
    I'd never heard it before, from googling it seems to be antiquated language in Britain.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      I (British) am familiar with the term, especially as a verb like "fencing stolen goods". You can find British newspapers reporting this in the last decade. The legal term since 1968 seems to be "Handling Stolen Goods", which might have made the word "fencing" less common: https://mcgeemcgeeagarlaw.co.uk/criminal-defence/handling-stolen-goods-solicitors/ https://mcgeemcgeeagarlaw.co.uk/criminal-defence/handling-st...
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Must have never played an elder scrolls game huh
    - Philpax 2y ago
      You've gotta watch more Guy Ritchie movies.
socalgal2 2y ago
No, the subject is society at large. Save kids today, get a society that can't function in the future, more kids die Asked ChatGPT for examples: https://markdownpastebin.com/?id=86c19b00a4ce4ff1aa3d2d5cb473ed2d https://markdownpastebin.com/?id=86c19b00a4ce4ff1aa3d2d5cb47... Note, I'm not saything this is how it is. Nor am I saying I believe free school lunches are bad. I'm saying the position that they are bad is a valid defendable position to take.

lurkshark 2y ago

I think the rebuttal to the majority of these arguments is “So you want children to go hungry to prove a point?”

boneitis 2y ago

I feel it on those concerns, though after all, I think the point of some people's stances is that everybody should be able to take free (and dignified) student lunches for granted, as sensible as the fish-vs-how-to-fish adage is in general. I think the concern about entitlement better applies when looking out for vultures taking advantage of these campaigners' goodwill by trying to wedge themselves into the middle of any cashflow for as-optimizably-marginal-as-possible contribution to those pipelines. Of course, I'm thinking of this more in some context of if there was a sort of centralized campaign to scale up efforts, say, statewide or nationwide (pardon my U.S-centric perspective), to solicit donations to pay off a bunch of schools' lunch debts in a region.

wredcoll 2y ago
> I think the concern about entitlement better applies when looking out for vultures taking advantage of these campaigners' goodwill by trying to wedge themselves into the middle of any cashflow for as-optimizably-marginal-as-possible contribution to those pipelines. Of course, I'm thinking of this more in some context of if there was a sort of centralized campaign to scale up efforts, say, statewide or nationwide (pardon my U.S-centric perspective), to solicit donations to pay off a bunch of schools' lunch debts in a region. What on earth does this paragraph have to do with the position that school children should receive free lunch?

rienbdj 2y ago

In the specific case of free school meals: - economies of scale in feeding an entire school - recipients of the benefit (children) and delivery mechanism (kitchens) are already at the right place and time - can guarantee money is spent on food rather than (for example) a parents gambling addiction - reduces stigma for poor children to have universality - can (in theory) deliver better food using school cooking facilities - saves time even for parents who can afford to feed children - teaching a hungry child is an uphill battle

qmr 2y ago

Yes those little shit free loading five year olds. Whining about lunch when they should be in the mines.

vel0city 2y ago
Need to start charging my toddler market rate rent. No more free rides, I ain't raising woke communist kids!

kerkeslager 1y ago

> Budgets might be cut directly, so can not feed some percent, budgets might be cut indirectly (less tax revenue). Stop talking as if there's no human actor involved in this. If budgets are cut (less tax revenue) it's because the same people who oppose feeding kids oppose taxing rich people. This is just people saying, "We can't feed kids, because we might decide to not tax rich people instead." I'm not confused about this possibility or missing this possibility: I'm saying "don't be an asshole, collect enough taxes to feed the kids". > Giving out free food might make people feel entitled and less likely to learn to be self sufficient. Stop talking about "people" as if you've forgotten these are children. Kids should feel entitled to eat, because children are entitled to receive food. Obviously we should be preparing them to learn to feed themselves as adults--nobody is confused about that--but it's going to be a whole lot harder for a child to learn if they're unsure about their next meal. And again, it's the same people who oppose school lunches who oppose education programs. Giving a child a fish and teaching the child to fish are not mutually exclusive. And US conservatives oppose both. > Back to budgets, it might remove money from other school needs. I guess the thinking would be, schools should teach, food is not their responsibility. If it comes their responsibility then they'll do less teaching which is back to not helping make their students able to ultimately fend for themselves but instead makes them dependent. Again, stop pretending there's no actors doing this. It's conservatives who are creating these artificially constrained budgets. It's conservatives who are not allocating enough money to both feed and educate children. I'm simply not interested in any argument which involves pretending there isn't enough money to feed children. There is enough money, you simply don't think feeding children is important enough to collect taxes to do it. I'm simply not interested in arguments about who should be feeding children. I want the federal government to fund schools to feed children because that's the only viable path to all the children in my country being fed on the table at the moment. You haven't presented any alternatives that work, and you won't, because you are more interested in avoiding taxes than you are in feeding children.