Free Lunch

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: wchou
no suckthing as a free lunch. free is a relative term used to fool the sheeple.

Wow, you're only about the 10th person in this thread to point that out. Thanks so very much! :)
 

ijester

Senior member
Aug 11, 2004
348
1
0

What I don't understand is why so many seem to think that every issue is soooo black and white as to make their viewpoint the only one that matters.

The free and reduced price lunch program is a good example. I actually participated in this program for about 4 months when I was in high school. I was from an average, middle class family, when my father got laid off due to downsizing at the company he worked for. Money became extremely tight, and my parents were very stressed out, as they had just spent their savings on a house because my fathers company had moved him just months prior to laying him off. The lunch program helped us out during this time.

Now, I am not for illegal immigrants getting welfare, I believe that welfare should only be for those american citizens that truly need it, and the government wastes more money than it spends. But I think to penalize those that really want to work and provide for their families is taking things a little too far.

 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
I think all poor 5 years old should start sowwing soccor balls with their teeth if they want to eat lunch. If it is good enough for china why not bring it here.
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: smack Down
I think all poor 5 years old should start sowwing soccor balls with their teeth if they want to eat lunch. If it is good enough for china why not bring it here.

I think all "poor" parents should start spending less money on alcohol, cigarettes, cable/satellite TV, Cars, and gambling and start feeding their children. It's really a good form of parenting that can only be enforced if we back them into a corner and say "Look, we're not gonna feed your kid anymore, that's YOUR responsibility". The reform suggested on free lunch such as monitoring who should really deserve free lunch and how often requires way too much government monitoring (something most people on the left despise) and will cost way too much.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: smack Down
I think all poor 5 years old should start sowwing soccor balls with their teeth if they want to eat lunch. If it is good enough for china why not bring it here.

I think all "poor" parents should start spending less money on alcohol, cigarettes, cable/satellite TV, Cars, and gambling and start feeding their children. It's really a good form of parenting that can only be enforced if we back them into a corner and say "Look, we're not gonna feed your kid anymore, that's YOUR responsibility". The reform suggested on free lunch such as monitoring who should really deserve free lunch and how often requires way too much government monitoring (something most people on the left despise) and will cost way too much.

Yea, because ALL poor parents spend money on stuff like that! :roll:

Tis the season for the "stereotype fools" to come out in the world, or so it seems!
 

AragornTK

Senior member
Dec 27, 2005
207
0
0
my school provided free lunch for kids who couldn't afford it, it was PB&J, an apple, and some water, the funny thing, is the ungrateful little bastards complained about it...
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Yea, because ALL poor parents spend money on stuff like that! :roll:

Did I say all poor parents did? Nope, I just said all of them in general (the entire picture) should spend less on those things. If they did, we could get rid of a lot of social programs and free up some money in the economy.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Yea, because ALL poor parents spend money on stuff like that! :roll:

Did I say all poor parents did? Nope, I just said all of them in general (the entire picture) should spend less on those things. If they did, we could get rid of a lot of social programs and free up some money in the economy.

Uh, yes you did.


Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I think all "poor" parents should start spending less money on alcohol, cigarettes, cable/satellite TV, Cars, and gambling and start feeding their children.

 

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Yea, because ALL poor parents spend money on stuff like that! :roll:

Did I say all poor parents did? Nope, I just said all of them in general (the entire picture) should spend less on those things. If they did, we could get rid of a lot of social programs and free up some money in the economy.
Can't make an omelet without breaking quite a few eggs, eh.


 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
I think all poor parents should start spending less money on....

I think all poor parents spend money on.....

The first sentence can be used to generalize poor people and what they spend their things on based on an average but the second (which you said I said) is a completely different ballpark because it's so cut and dry.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I think all poor parents should start spending less money on....

I think all poor parents spend money on.....

The first sentence can be used to generalize poor people and what they spend their things on based on an average but the second (which you said I said) is a completely different ballpark because it's so cut and dry.

Digging yourself into a deeper hole, I see. :laugh:

If all poor people should start spending less money on the stuff that you say, then you're saying that they all spend on those items. If you made a mistake, admit it and go on. Regardless, you are stereotyping all poor people and you know it! :cookie: for you. You should not need a free lunch for several weeks with the collection you have earned! :)
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that you should probably know what I meant. If I say "All the people at my school are snobby", obviously not ALL OF THEM are snobby and I shouldn't even have to explain that when I'm trying to make a point.
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that you should probably know what I meant. If I say "All the people at my school are snobby", obviously not ALL OF THEM are snobby and I shouldn't even have to explain that when I'm trying to make a point.

actually, you should because you're making a generalization regardless, with not an ounce of proof to back it up.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: smack Down
I think all poor 5 years old should start sowwing soccor balls with their teeth if they want to eat lunch. If it is good enough for china why not bring it here.

I think all "poor" parents should start spending less money on alcohol, cigarettes, cable/satellite TV, Cars, and gambling and start feeding their children. It's really a good form of parenting that can only be enforced if we back them into a corner and say "Look, we're not gonna feed your kid anymore, that's YOUR responsibility". The reform suggested on free lunch such as monitoring who should really deserve free lunch and how often requires way too much government monitoring (something most people on the left despise) and will cost way too much.

And what if the parents don't stop spending less money on alcohol, cigarettes, cable/satellite TV, Cars, and gambling, then is it time to start having 5 year old slave labor???
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that you should probably know what I meant. If I say "All the people at my school are snobby", obviously not ALL OF THEM are snobby and I shouldn't even have to explain that when I'm trying to make a point.

Nice argument there Tex! :roll:
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that you should probably know what I meant. If I say "All the people at my school are snobby", obviously not ALL OF THEM are snobby and I shouldn't even have to explain that when I'm trying to make a point.

actually, you should because you're making a generalization regardless, with not an ounce of proof to back it up.

Do I really need proof that says people living in poverty in the U.S. spend their money on those things?

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that you should probably know what I meant. If I say "All the people at my school are snobby", obviously not ALL OF THEM are snobby and I shouldn't even have to explain that when I'm trying to make a point.

actually, you should because you're making a generalization regardless, with not an ounce of proof to back it up.

Do I really need proof that says people living in poverty in the U.S. spend their money on those things?

Since you seem to be lumping them all into the same category, then YES.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake. I'm saying that you should probably know what I meant. If I say "All the people at my school are snobby", obviously not ALL OF THEM are snobby and I shouldn't even have to explain that when I'm trying to make a point.

actually, you should because you're making a generalization regardless, with not an ounce of proof to back it up.

Do I really need proof that says people living in poverty in the U.S. spend their money on those things?
Since you seem to be lumping them all into the same category, then YES.
Yes.
 

BlancoNino

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2005
5,695
0
0
Since you seem to be lumping them all into the same category, then YES.


Do I need to re-explain what I meant? I meant poor people as a whole, whether or not certain specific families are spending money on these things, need to spend less on them. I just want the figures to read 0% of poor families spend money on alcohol, cigarettes, cable/satellite TV, Cars, and gambling. That's what I mean.