> Every conclusion that follows is only logical if you go with a completely nonsensical assumption. He specifically said that his father had enough money, and

> Every conclusion that follows is only logical if you go with a completely nonsensical assumption. He specifically said that his father had enough money, and the issue was specifically paying for school lunches. Unless they literally woke up in the morning and went out for every breakfast before school every single day, and came home and ate a restaurant every single night, and went out to dinner three times a day on the weekends for every meal, and his dad literally didn't even keep a scrap of food in the house for himself and the fridge was completely empty, then there was food in the house. It should be obvious which of those assumptions is "completely nonsensical." > If OPs Dad was willing to let his kid starve daily I wonder what his punishment would have been for eating his Dad's food. He specifically says he stole his dad's cigarettes many times and resold them. Are you trying to claim that he would have gotten in more trouble for eating food from the fridge than for stealing his dad's cigarettes and reselling them? You're correct that there are many nonsensical assumptions here, but you seem to have missed which ones those are.