2 suspended for not indulging young peoples sense of entitlement for a free lunch

[Moonbeam]

Why are you trying to blame the economic system?

The real problem is predominantly people making poor choices. Even the fox news article about the "New Face of Food Stamps" was about a single mom who appears to have dropped out of nursing school to raise her bastard child.

The problem is a society that fails to promote any form of values.

Your values are shit. Had you any shame you wouldn't even use the word.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I'm not having kids either, but this demographic transition will be *rough*. The baby boomers are about to start loading the system down. Maybe if we spent more on sex education and birth control, we could get the numbers down.

It's probably a good thing the 3 posters I was referring to Neo,Neh,Neb have chosen not to have children. I could see the kids turning out to be anti social
On the other hand if they would of had kids, the 3 may have progressed and matured more as normal productive people

 

[Vic]

It was stupid to take back the food.
Just dont feed them tomorrow.

Exactly. They already served the lunches to children. Taking them back and throwing them in the garage is just spiteful and completely inappropriate.

And can I add that the OP is a dbag for spinning this how he did? If these kids had been getting free lunches, there would not have the issue about their parents not paying.

 

[Vic]

The problem is a society that fails to promote any form of values.

You're not helping with that.

 

[Paladin3]

I love this debate where people bitch to hold everyone accountable for their poor decisions, or in this case, the poor decisions of their parents. Sure, let the children of slackers go hungry. But where do those kids go? Are they going to die and free society of the burden of their existence? No, they aren't.

It is absolutely in society's best interest to ensure those kids are raised and educated well, regardless of the initial cost. Doing so is the best way to make sure they grow into law abiding, self sufficient citizens who don't further burden society.

I want these hungry 5th-graders to grow to be the kind of people who can and will pay their kids lunch bill. Anyone who thinks snatching the school lunch out of their young hands makes this more likely to happen is a fool.

More people fail out of the school of hard knocks than any other. I'd be willing to buy a kid a school lunch to help ensure that doesn't happen, especially since I'm going to be relying on him to work and keep society going when I am too old to do so.

 

[MagickMan]

I love this debate where people bitch to hold everyone accountable for their poor decisions, or in this case, the poor decisions of their parents. Sure, let the children of slackers go hungry. But where do those kids go? Are they going to die and free society of the burden of their existence? No, they aren't.

Strawman. No, the kids shouldn't go hungry, I don't think anyone in this thread said that, but the parents need to be held accountable for not doing their jobs. I love my little girl, and if I lost everything tomorrow I'd gladly scrub dishes 16 hours /day to provide for her, if I had to. Because that's my job and she's my responsibility.

 

[stlc8tr]

When I saw this story, I wondered how many ATPN trolls would support throwing out food instead of feeding the kids and they did not disappoint. Haha.

Also, some of the parents are claiming that they were never notified. Kinda hard to pay up when you don't know you are in arrears, eh?

 

[CitizenKain]

You cannot be the kind of society which refuses to consider sterilizing any of its members or placing any sort of regulations on who can reproduce and in what quantity AND simultaneously be the kind of society that has an ever-increasing appetite for social welfare programs.

Well, you can, but not indefinitely.

We better start with you and your family then. I'm surprised that trailer park you are posting from has internet.

 

[Geosurface]

We better start with you and your family then. I'm surprised that trailer park you are posting from has internet.

Actually, my family are high IQ, completely law-abiding, live in nice communities, and have limited themselves to a reasonable number of children for generations.

Both my sets of grandparents had three children each, and those children were part of the baby boomer generation. Both sets of grandparents and their children lived on farms and were self-sufficient. This was before all the crazy farm subsidies there are now. If there were any at that time, they were minimal. Living on prosperous farms with large farm houses and a need for the labor, they certainly could have gone overboard and had many more than three children.

My parents and their siblings have all had either two children, three children (in one case) or zero children.

No one in my family from my generation has had children before the age of thirty or before having a stable situation to raise them in.

We are not part of the problem.

And those on these forums who are saying they won't have children are doing more harm than good. With very few exceptions, the members of this board (whether I agree with them or like them or not) are high IQ, productive members of society. It isn't just an issue of quantity, it is an issue of quality and everyone here should have children if they haven't.

 

[nehalem256]

I love this debate where people bitch to hold everyone accountable for their poor decisions, or in this case, the poor decisions of their parents. Sure, let the children of slackers go hungry. But where do those kids go? Are they going to die and free society of the burden of their existence? No, they aren't.

It is absolutely in society's best interest to ensure those kids are raised and educated well, regardless of the initial cost. Doing so is the best way to make sure they grow into law abiding, self sufficient citizens who don't further burden society.

I want these hungry 5th-graders to grow to be the kind of people who can and will pay their kids lunch bill. Anyone who thinks snatching the school lunch out of their young hands makes this more likely to happen is a fool.

More people fail out of the school of hard knocks than any other. I'd be willing to buy a kid a school lunch to help ensure that doesn't happen, especially since I'm going to be relying on him to work and keep society going when I am too old to do so.

Wasn't it liberals who kept saying with regards to the debt ceiling that you don't give into hostage takers.

Seems like based on liberals own logic we shouldn't be giving into people trying to use children as hostages to extort benefits from society

 

[sourn]

All this entitlement is bullshit. We pay tax money for public schools, they need to use that tax money for this shit instead of lining their own damn pockets. When will you fucking sheep wake the fuck up.

It's ok to spend trillions of dollars on a war that isn't ours, to give countries billions of dollars, give them all sorts of free shit.. But fuck education, fuck healthcare, fuck anything that would help actual Americans. Those tax dollars clearly belong in the hands of some third world country.

 

[CitizenKain]

Actually, my family are high IQ, completely law-abiding, live in nice communities, and have limited themselves to a reasonable number of children for generations.

Both my sets of grandparents had three children each, and those children were part of the baby boomer generation. Both sets of grandparents and their children lived on farms and were self-sufficient. This was before all the crazy farm subsidies there are now. If there were any at that time, they were minimal. Living on prosperous farms with large farm houses and a need for the labor, they certainly could have gone overboard and had many more than three children.

My parents and their siblings have all had either two children, three children (in one case) or zero children.

No one in my family from my generation has had children before the age of thirty or before having a stable situation to raise them in.

We are not part of the problem.

And those on these forums who are saying they won't have children are doing more harm than good. With very few exceptions, the members of this board (whether I agree with them or like them or not) are high IQ, productive members of society. It isn't just an issue of quantity, it is an issue of quality and everyone here should have children if they haven't.

Sounds like complete bullshit, but people of your type tend to be complete liars.

 

[Genx87]

There the compassion of the state showing it face again.

 

[nickbits]

So the second someone is laid off or something else happens that severely impacts their financial well being should their kids just get yanked right away? Got a medical issue? Kiss your kids good bye?

The second someone is laid off they can collect unemployment, no?

It should their immediate and extended families (or friends even) that step up to help not the government. If there isn't anyone that cares enough to help them directly and they failed at life then I don't see the problem with breaking them up and trying to salvage the pieces.

I guess I am hard on people because I don't understand how anyone can do worse than me. I'm nothing special and I survive OK.

 

[Geosurface]

Sounds like complete bullshit, but people of your type tend to be complete liars.

Where "my type" means people you don't like and disagree with.

Fact is, I've never lied about myself or my beliefs on these boards since registering here.

This hasn't stopped people of your type from accusing me on a fairly regular basis of:

1. Misrepresenting my beliefs
2. Lying about my personal life
3. Being an alt account
4. Lying about my past beliefs

None of which have one molecule of merit.

But when people of your type call someone a liar or an alt account or a troll, 99% of the time this is just a stand in for what they really mean: "I disagree with you, I don't like you, and I'm unable to resist the lure of childish insults when disagreeing with someone. Also, I'm nowhere near a big enough man to admit I was wrong in an assumption about someone I dislike."

 

[HeXen]

Give the kids the lunches and sue the parents. What else can they really do about it? The kids can't help if if their parents are deadbeats nor should they suffer for it.

 

[nehalem256]

Give the kids the lunches and sue the parents. What else can they really do about it? The kids can't help if if their parents are deadbeats nor should they suffer for it.

The kids were not left to starve. They were given fruit and milk. This is quite often more than I have for lunch.

The second someone is laid off they can collect unemployment, no?

It should their immediate and extended families (or friends even) that step up to help not the government. If there isn't anyone that cares enough to help them directly and they failed at life then I don't see the problem with breaking them up and trying to salvage the pieces.

I guess I am hard on people because I don't understand how anyone can do worse than me. I'm nothing special and I survive OK.

The problem isn't with you be too hard on people.

The problem is with the left thinking there should be absolutely no standards for people. They literally think if you have 4 bastard children that you cannot feed that you have a right to pop out even more(see http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36022008&postcount=46). That is nothing less than insane

 

[glenn1]

Give the kids the lunches and sue the parents. What else can they really do about it? The kids can't help if if their parents are deadbeats nor should they suffer for it.

Garnish any wages or welfare payments going to parents for a start, and start billboard shaming campaigns for a second.

 

[classy]

Sounds like complete bullshit, but people of your type tend to be complete liars.

lol

 

[gevorg]

wow, you really have to be fucked in the head to snatch food from kids after giving it to them

 

[Moonbeam]

[QUOTE=Geosurface:

We are not part of the problem.

M: By accident of birth.

 

[stlc8tr]

The kids were not left to starve. They were given fruit and milk. This is quite often more than I have for lunch.

So it's better to throw away the lunch than to let the kids eat it?

That's a weird kind of a "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" type of logic.

 

[KK]

They shouldn't be indian givers, but also these worthless parents that can't afford kids should be sterilized.

 

[Geosurface]

By accident of birth.

I used to believe in "accident of birth" a lot and one thing I was particularly fond of saying was that people being "proud" of being whatever ethnic group they were was so stupid because they had nothing to do with it. How can you feel entitled to be proud of something that was completely out of your control, after all?

Of course, I still acknowledge the truth of the basic notion that obviously, none of us can claim what we are born as as an "accomplishment" in the traditional sense.

However, I now understand that what it means to be YOU is not some detached thing which is somehow independent of your heritage and biology. The two are inexorably intertwined and everything about you and what it means to be you is a result of the choices your ancestors made, and who they were. Where they chose to make their home, how they lived, who they chose as their mates, etc.

People aren't interchangeable and you cannot extract yourself from your biology and your ancestors.

They struggled to survive and we owe our lives to them, we owe them honor and respect, and they live still within us.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Actually, my family are high IQ, completely law-abiding, live in nice communities, and have limited themselves to a reasonable number of children for generations.

Both my sets of grandparents had three children each, and those children were part of the baby boomer generation. Both sets of grandparents and their children lived on farms and were self-sufficient. This was before all the crazy farm subsidies there are now. If there were any at that time, they were minimal. Living on prosperous farms with large farm houses and a need for the labor, they certainly could have gone overboard and had many more than three children.

My parents and their siblings have all had either two children, three children (in one case) or zero children.

No one in my family from my generation has had children before the age of thirty or before having a stable situation to raise them in.

We are not part of the problem.

And those on these forums who are saying they won't have children are doing more harm than good. With very few exceptions, the members of this board (whether I agree with them or like them or not) are high IQ, productive members of society. It isn't just an issue of quantity, it is an issue of quality and everyone here should have children if they haven't.

Well, at least you can admit farmers can have a high IQ
But I have to wonder what you consider a high IQ, and what you consider a productive member of society?
What do you consider a stable situation to raise a child and why haven't you achieved it yet?