By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should teenagers and children determine what they eat for lunch?

richardhutnik on 28 September 2012
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Here is an article on The American Conservative website that discusses the politics of food that I believe is of value to this thread:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/porky-populism/


It sorta seems to TOTALLY miss the point that it itself misses.

Which is unhealth eating doesn't have ANYTHING to do with regualtions, food deserts(mostly fictional) or whatever else big reasons people give.

In fact, regulations to make people eat healthy are going to do the opposite and make them eat worse.

The problem is government always tried to play the heavy, even with social issues.

 

Social issues pretty much can never be solved by a heavy handed approach and are often accidentally made worse by such an approach.


Besides a lot of the barriers to eating healthy are CAUSED by government.  Like big corn subsidies and the mountains of regulations that choke out local growers.

Did you even bother to read the article I posted?  I said it connects to the discussion here.   These barriers may be an issue, but it doesn't exclude cultural stupidity.  A basic conservative view is that values do matter, and ideas do have consequences, and collectively turning a blind eye to these, means a society will collectively suffer.  Social conservatives and traditionalists hold this to be valid, and the article does speak to it.

Yes.  I did.  It blamed such stupiditiy on people being against such laws.

Which is stupid.  Sociologically such laws are actually what end up entrenching such kind of beliefs harder.

If you study society anyway.

The question is.... how does one change culture.

In general such laws and mandates are a huge barrier to changing such culture.

As such you end up with things like kids not eating, and creating a culture where people look down on eating healthy.

You've got to ask why this mindset formed in people... and it's something maybe i'll get into when i have more time.

The argument against the laws used is stupidity.  It isn't based on wise views, just immature pandering and other emotionalism that usually drive populism. It is crying freedom... to drive a car off a cliff.

In the Towhall.com article, it was this playing up the stupid side of populism.  It wasn't  a call from moral superiority, but whining and pandering.  It was "look, the kids are suffering, Michelle Obama hates kids".  It is porky populism. 



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 28 September 2012
Kantor said:
richardhutnik said:
Kantor said:

You prefer the idea of a lawyer with no scientific background dictating things to said majority?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/snacks-usdas-solution-healthy-school-lunch-protests/story?id=17324285#.UGULLpjO3h8

If you want to get cute, then it would be the first lady vs high schoolers.  So, no, you want high schoolers to be able to FULLY to be able to dictate completely where tax dollars go for their food.  You want them to vote on this.  Either you believe they will make wiser choices or that the guidelines are stupid.

Reality is that the USDA's plan includes more vegetables, complext carbs and less junk food.  That is the meal proposal and 750-850 calories for lunch, and the ability for kids to go back for seconds on fruits and vegetables.  And it is based on the advice of nutritionists who are experts in the area.  But you don't believe in nutritionist guidelines apparently.  So, so much for your arguing about scientific background.  You seriously should look into what is behind here, rather than bite into the first line you find convenient.

I was being facetious, of course. I am not claiming that fruit and vegetables are somehow bad for you.

Of course children should be eating healthy food, and should undoubtedly have the option to eat healthy food. Elementary and middle schoolers, honestly, should even be forced to eat healthy food because they're really not mature enough to live with the consequences of their actions.

By the age of 14, somebody should really be able to make that decision for themselves.

Should doesn't mean we do.  I believe we have an entire society of entitled and spoiled brats that have caused it so that any form of aurhority and training is missing, so kids make better decisions.  Kids end up ruling today.  And you see it with the obesity epidemic, as collectively, American society is doing it wrong, very wrong, for a wide range of reasons.  It is very possible also the fast food industry is now so advanced in what it does, it ends up being the single cheapest way to eat, all things considered.  Thing about teens is they aren't quite there yet.  



aikohualda on 28 September 2012

yes because they know what is good and best for them :)



 

Player1x3 on 28 September 2012
Jay520 said:
School lunches aren't what's causing obesity or most health problems. In fact, they're not really a factor at all.

Obesity is caused by what kids do/eat at home. It's mainly the lack of exercise though. In terms of food, its the fast food and junk that kids eat, not school lunches.

So yeah, let kids eat what they want during school lunches. If they don't want to get fat, then go exercise. And even if they do get fat, school lunches wouldn't be a factor. It's the food outside of school and lack of exercise. Only allowing healthy isn't going to change anything for those two reasons.


Did that fat guy make you post that?



MrBubbles on 28 September 2012

the assertion that schools should supply awful foods to children is just bullshit. they have an obligation to provide healthy and nutritious foods to the children. why in the world would they provide foods that are essentially harming the child??
if they dont want to eat it or if their parents dont want them eating it. then the parents can provide something else. schools shouldnt cater to stupidity .



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Around the Network
Kantor on 28 September 2012
MrBubbles said:
the assertion that schools should supply awful foods to children is just bullshit. they have an obligation to provide healthy and nutritious foods to the children. why in the world would they provide foods that are essentially harming the child??
if they dont want to eat it or if their parents dont want them eating it. then the parents can provide something else. schools shouldnt cater to stupidity .

Nobody's saying that they should supply awful food, just that they should supply good-tasting food, preferably of a range of different nutritious values.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Jay520 on 28 September 2012
Player1x3 said:
Jay520 said:
School lunches aren't what's causing obesity or most health problems. In fact, they're not really a factor at all.

Obesity is caused by what kids do/eat at home. It's mainly the lack of exercise though. In terms of food, its the fast food and junk that kids eat, not school lunches.

So yeah, let kids eat what they want during school lunches. If they don't want to get fat, then go exercise. And even if they do get fat, school lunches wouldn't be a factor. It's the food outside of school and lack of exercise. Only allowing healthy isn't going to change anything for those two reasons.


Did that fat guy make you post that?



LoL, when will it end!?!

sales2099 on 28 September 2012

Kids dont know whats best for them. Better they hate you now and respect you later when they understand what you did for them.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 on 28 September 2012
Jay520 said:
the2real4mafol said:

Advertising like this don't help either


What? You guys don't have a fourth meal in your country? Don't you guys wake everyday at 3 AM to refill your stomach, like normal people? 

I personally think the four-meal system is perfect. I think that's because humans think in fours. It's the perfect plan though. Eat a meal every six hours. A nice, fixed, stable lifestyle. I sometimes have a few snacks in-between meals though, just in case my stomach isn't full.

6am is breakfast. 12 is lunch. 6 is dinner. And lets throw in a midnight snack.......all that energy that will be wasted and unused, going stright into your thighs and ass :P



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Jay520 on 28 September 2012
sales2099 said:
Jay520 said:
the2real4mafol said:

Advertising like this don't help either


What? You guys don't have a fourth meal in your country? Don't you guys wake everyday at 3 AM to refill your stomach, like normal people? 

I personally think the four-meal system is perfect. I think that's because humans think in fours. It's the perfect plan though. Eat a meal every six hours. A nice, fixed, stable lifestyle. I sometimes have a few snacks in-between meals though, just in case my stomach isn't full.

6am is breakfast. 12 is lunch. 6 is dinner. And lets throw in a midnight snack.......all that energy that will be wasted and unused, going stright into your thighs and ass :P



That's the point!