Lame - teacher takes away pre-K's lunch and replaces with Chicken Nuggets

[VietCowboy]

I'm not challenging the science of it.

I was responding to a specific concern you broached about rising health care costs. That's an economics issue.

You are right, but again, given the burden it has on society, it's a very important issue to consider. yes, there should be personal responsibility, but government regulates often to ensure societal success (and it is the best interest of government to reduce the epidemic of childhood obesity)

Why does the government regulate drug use, even those that arguably does harm to the person but not others such as narcotics / percocet / opiates. Why do they not allow children to buy nicotine or beer?

 

[iceberg]

i talked to my friend tonight over darwin and evolution.

it seems darwin never said mankind evolved from apes, it was just most expedient to say to the masses who needed a quick answer.

we do that today.

sure this chic was an idiot.

why do we give so much time to an idiot?

cause evolution is low and not as connected as you think

 

[ScipioCowboy]

You are right, but again, given the burden it has on society, it's a very important issue to consider. yes, there should be personal responsibility, but government regulates often to ensure societal success (and it is the best interest of government to reduce the epidemic of childhood obesity)

Why does the government regulate drug use, even those that arguably does harm to the person but not others such as narcotics / percocet / opiates. Why do they not allow children to buy nicotine or beer?

In my opinion, the War on Drugs has been a colossal failure. Generally speaking, when you outlaw a substance, you really only serve to create a black market for it. This is why prohibition was ended. It was completely ineffective.


Laws that forbid

 

[VietCowboy]

In my opinion, the War on Drugs has been a colossal failure. Generally speaking, when you outlaw a substance, you really only serve to create a black market for it. This is why prohibition was ended. It was completely ineffective.


Laws that forbid

There are a lot of things wrong with the war on drugs, but, the regulation of controlled substances that are legal with prescription, such as painkillers, is where I am drawing the comparison. Do you think the government SHOULDN'T regulate this? Do you remember what happened in China over 100 years ago when many people got so addicted to opiates? I think the government has a vested interest in ensuring the reduction of drug addiction in its people. Furthermore, why are adults banned from providing children with tobacco and beer? If it's about personal/parental responsibility, shouldn't the parents have a right to give those to their children as they see fit to raise their children?

How does the harm of tobacco/alcohol abuse in children differ from the harm of a poor diet?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

There are a lot of things wrong with the war on drugs, but, the regulation of controlled substances that are legal with prescription, such as painkillers, is where I am drawing the comparison. Do you think the government SHOULDN'T regulate this? Do you remember what happened in China over 100 years ago when many people got so addicted to opiates? I think the government has a vested interest in ensuring the reduction of drug addiction in its people. Furthermore, why are adults banned from providing children with tobacco and beer?

They aren't. Although minors aren't allowed to purchase alcohol, they can consume it under parental supervision.

In fact, in many European countries, children begin drinking in their early teens, and beer is actually allowed on school grounds.

I cited The War on Drugs because, like many other government initiatives, it has failed its intended purpose in spectacular fashion. It's simply perpetuated a mind-numbing amount of violence and death.

Do you honestly think there isn't a black market for prescription drugs? Ask Rush Limbaugh about that.

If it's about personal/parental responsibility, shouldn't the parents have a right to give those to their children as they see fit to raise their children?

That's my entire point. Parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit. They do not, however, have the right to make others pay the cost of raising their children.

How does the harm of tobacco/alcohol abuse in children differ from the harm of a poor diet?

Because the two laws aren't at all comparable.

Tobacco and alcohol laws prevent minors from purchasing those items. These school dietary regulations require children to consume certain types of food, and then make their parents pay for it.

Chasmic difference.

 

[VietCowboy]

They aren't. Although minors aren't allowed to purchase alcohol, they can consume it under parental supervision.

In fact, in many European countries, children begin drinking in their early teens, and beer is actually allowed on school grounds.

I cited The War on Drugs because, like many other government initiatives, it has failed its intended purpose in spectacular fashion. It's simply perpetuated a mind-numbing amount of violence and death.

Do you honestly think there isn't a black market for prescription drugs? Ask Rush Limbaugh about that.

That's my entire point. Parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit. They do not, however, have the right to make others pay the cost of raising their children.

Because the two laws aren't at all comparable.

Tobacco and alcohol laws prevent minors from purchasing those items. These school dietary regulations require children to consume certain types of food, and then make their parents pay for it.

Chasmic difference.

So, schools (public in particular) shouldn't require school uniform, require specific classes or competencies to move on / graduate if parents disagree that's a way for their child to be educated/raised (i.e. evolution)? What about laws that prohibit adults smoking in the car in the presence of a child?

There are many laws that require parents to provide a modicum of services to their children else it is considered neglect, even if it is against their religious belief.

Should parents be required to put children in a car seat if they are young and cannot safely sit in there? Or parents required to administer non-physical punishment lest they want to be investigated for child abuse? It's okay for you to see a child with bruises and cuts (not talking about broken bones) and if the child tells you it is just papa's way of raising and teaching me?

 

[burmafrd]

The STATE - as in any governmental body at any level- is way too involved in our lives as it is.



Those that love Darwin should not want the state involved in such things like this.

Survival of the fittest; weed out the weak and stupid.

Better overall population.

 

[Faerluna]

This thread has become Lord of the Flies.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

So, schools (public in particular) shouldn't require school uniform, require specific classes or competencies to move on / graduate if parents disagree that's a way for their child to be educated/raised (i.e. evolution)? What about laws that prohibit adults smoking in the car in the presence of a child?

There are many laws that require parents to provide a modicum of services to their children else it is considered neglect, even if it is against their religious belief.

Should parents be required to put children in a car seat if they are young and cannot safely sit in there? Or parents required to administer non-physical punishment lest they want to be investigated for child abuse? It's okay for you to see a child with bruises and cuts (not talking about broken bones) and if the child tells you it is just papa's way of raising and teaching me?

Most school dress codes work by prohibiting a child from wearing certain types of clothing or hair styles. If you violate the codes, you're sent home. The teachers don't re-dress you and then charge your parents for the new clothes.

Believe it or not, parents are allowed to exempt their children from educational material with which they disagree.

Children should most certainly be required to wear seat belts. However, once again, you're comparing apples to oranges. You aren't required to drive a car. You are, however, required to send your child to school.

I've already addressed the issue of child abuse. No one has said that parental authority is absolute. That's a straw man.

 

[Faerluna]

You are, however, required to send your child to school.

Nope. Homeschooling.

 

[ShiningStar]

Nope. Homeschooling.

actua;;y some states are trying to take away homeschooling. I dont know if they are successful, but some are trying.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Nope. Homeschooling.

Nope. You're still required to provide for the education of your child, even if it's homeschooling.

However, you're not required to drive on public roadways.

 

[VietCowboy]

Most school dress codes work by prohibiting a child from wearing certain types of clothing or hair styles. If you violate the codes, you're sent home. The teachers don't re-dress you and then charge your parents for the new clothes.

Believe it or not, parents are allowed to exempt their children from educational material with which they disagree.

Children should most certainly be required to wear seat belts. However, once again, you're comparing apples to oranges. You aren't required to drive a car. You are, however, required to send your child to school.

I've already addressed the issue of child abuse. No one has said that parental authority is absolute. That's a straw man.

So what you are saying is that your beliefs regarding parental rights are where we should draw the line between what parents are required and not required to do (after all, it wasn't too long ago that kids were required to attend some form of school; many kids worldwide do not get an education). Cool.

And, if I'm a holocaust denyer, and can force my school to remove my child from their social studies / history class? Did not know that. I will have to research this.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

So what you are saying is that your beliefs regarding parental rights are where we should draw the line between what parents are required and not required to do (after all, it wasn't too long ago that kids were required to attend some form of school; many kids worldwide do not get an education). Cool.

I'm the one resisting the government's efforts to impose strict standards on childrens' lunches and then bill their parents if those lunches fail to meet such standards. Yet, somehow, in a bizarre twist of logic, I'm also the one trying to impose arbitrary standards on parental rights.

Right.

There's a disconnect here...

And, if I'm a holocaust denyer, and can force my school to remove my child from their social studies / history class? Did not know that. I will have to research this.

You could always try denying the holocaust and find out...

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Quick, everyone. Avoid turkey sandwiches as if your life depended on it...because it does!

In fact, lock this thread right now so no one gets any crazy ideas about a butterball turkey.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Are we still talking about this?

The school district I live in is far worse than anything this article is about.

Yeah, but you live in Russia.