Should school kids be forced a healthy lunch?

Demon_Skeith

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
87,060
2007
4,386
Awards
30
Credits
25,638
Steal Penalty
You're Rich Money Bags Award
Profile Music
So I guess next year schools around the nation will be serving more healthy meals.  But really, after being stuck in a cramp stuffy building for 4-5 hours I think kids should be allowed to eat what they want. Yes something good and healthy should be served but I see no reason to completely remove all fat and tasty food from the menu.

Most kids meals come from outside of the school, so whatever the school does will have little impact and may IMO hinder kid's attention span for the rest of the day.

Your thoughts on this?
 
No because forcing anything is never a good idea. If a kid is going to eat unhealthy foods then forcing them isn't going to change it. They will simply choose to do so by any means necessary.

What should be done is education. If you just sit up and tell them no, and then off them no real explanation then they aren't likely to listen. But if you offer them an explanation and then show the effects that these foods have on their health, then it is likely that they will.

Education and choice are always good things to have and if someone, even a kid, is presented with a choice and they are informed of the consequences, then they will likely make the right decision.
 
The Obamas are incredibly stupid. Really, they don't care about the kids; they care about taking control of them and using them as political minions.
 
Maybe schools can use more healthy ingredients like vegetable oil, and free run chickens to make tasty healthy food like fried chicken, and baking fries  and chips instead of frying them.

Oatmeal, Peanut butter, "real" chocolate, cereal, Pan cakes, Apple Pie, Orange juice, and Honey can be tasty, and healthy.
 
Nuke said:
The Obamas are incredibly stupid. Really, they don't care about the kids; they care about taking control of them and using them as political minions.
Both parties do this. The GOP is hellbent on restricting women's reproductive rights when it comes to an embryo or fetus that has not yet become a baby, and yet when the baby is born they could careless.

They certainly aren't supportive of sex ed to help educate teens and curtail unwanted  teen pregnancies, they don't want adults to use birth control or contraceptives, they don't support programs that will help support the people who couldn't afford a child to begin with, yet, were forced to carry the pregnancy to term because their leaders (and I use that term loosely) didn't want these people to have access to sex ed, contraceptives or abortion, and they don't want education at all except for the bullshit that is in the Bible.

The GOP don't care about children, women, the struggling poor (many of whom are homeless vets who fought and served their country) and disappearing middle class, education, their constituents, their country or the environment. All they care about is their guns, their own hatred that they conveniently hide behind their religion, their offshore bank accounts and businesses with out-sourced jobs and anyone else that shares their ideals. In short, they don't give a damn about anyone that isn't apart of the 1%.

Compared to the alternative, the Obama's are the lesser of many evils. I just hope that the next Democrat in office has a stronger backbone than Obama. At least we can honestly say that he doesn't have binders full of women stored somewhere.
 
Black Angel said:
Both parties do this. The GOP is hellbent on restricting women's reproductive rights when it comes to an embryo or fetus that has not yet become a baby, and yet when the baby is born they could careless.

They certainly aren't supportive of sex ed to help educate teens and curtail unwanted  teen pregnancies, they don't want adults to use birth control or contraceptives, they don't support programs that will help support the people who couldn't afford a child to begin with, yet, were forced to carry the pregnancy to term because their leaders (and I use that term loosely) didn't want these people to have access to sex ed, contraceptives or abortion, and they don't want education at all except for the bullshit that is in the Bible.

The GOP don't care about children, women, the struggling poor (many of whom are homeless vets who fought and served their country) and disappearing middle class, education, their constituents, their country or the environment. All they care about is their guns, their own hatred that they conveniently hide behind their religion, their offshore bank accounts and businesses with out-sourced jobs and anyone else that shares their ideals. In short, they don't give a damn about anyone that isn't apart of the 1%.

Compared to the alternative, the Obama's are the lesser of many evils. I just hope that the next Democrat in office has a stronger backbone than Obama. At least we can honestly say that he doesn't have binders full of women stored somewhere.
You sound like an idiot who just worships Obama and pretends like he's a "lesser evil" to make yourself look valid.

In tests of abstinence-only sexual education, the effectiveness rate over traditional jackass party forcing condoms on kids education was steeper than the CDC implied in their analysis, despite the prohibition of taking any moral tone or stance, disparagement of contraception, and discouragement of extramarital affairs, while not even encouraging children to wait until marriage. Specifically, there was a large reduction in teen pregnancy - around 10-20% IIRC.

The Republicans do not go far enough. They do not even call for the end of freely available weapons of government oppression and brainwashing of children to believe these weapons, aka "contraceptives", to be "liberators". I would like to see these oppressive tools of the Orwellian State to be outlawed, with steep life-of-hard-labor consequences, and more efforts to decimate their popularity than the drug war.

I am not a "bullshit" "Bible" fanatic. I am actually Agnostic.

Also, the "1%" isn't exactly rich, since the Government seeks to rob them until they're more poor than the "99%".

Women are actually pretty much the pawns of the Democratic Party in that they're brainwashed into believing "War on Women" propaganda. I only see one "War on Women": The Democratic Campaigns Against Them! They seek to coerce them into murdering their own children, so that they regret it later. They're just as bigoted as the Democrats of 1865, having an agenda to dissolve black culture to give legitimacy to the Ku Klux Klan. Additionally, they seek to demoralize women in order to bring about tyranny not only in the USA but around the West. Additionally, they're the reason that women are so highly objectified. Why? The very condoms and birth control that you advocate!

Of course, the "1%" is obviously in control of the Democratic Party, albeit not 100% of them. See, there are people who stand up for freedom and there are people who want to lock the gates to prosperity. The former aligns to the Right. The latter aligns to the Left.

Also, you're sure supportive of children, with your calls to slaughter them en masse.

Now; objections?

(I've got to laugh at this escalation speed.)
 
Nuke said:
You sound like an idiot who just worships Obama and pretends like he's a "lesser evil" to make yourself look valid.

In tests of abstinence-only sexual education, the effectiveness rate over traditional jackass party forcing condoms on kids education was steeper than the CDC implied in their analysis, despite the prohibition of taking any moral tone or stance, disparagement of contraception, and discouragement of extramarital affairs, while not even encouraging children to wait until marriage. Specifically, there was a large reduction in teen pregnancy - around 10-20% IIRC.

The Republicans do not go far enough. They do not even call for the end of freely available weapons of government oppression and brainwashing of children to believe these weapons, aka "contraceptives", to be "liberators". I would like to see these oppressive tools of the Orwellian State to be outlawed, with steep life-of-hard-labor consequences, and more efforts to decimate their popularity than the drug war.

I am not a "bullshit" "Bible" fanatic. I am actually Agnostic.

Also, the "1%" isn't exactly rich, since the Government seeks to rob them until they're more poor than the "99%".

Women are actually pretty much the pawns of the Democratic Party in that they're brainwashed into believing "War on Women" propaganda. I only see one "War on Women": The Democratic Campaigns Against Them! They seek to coerce them into murdering their own children, so that they regret it later. They're just as bigoted as the Democrats of 1865, having an agenda to dissolve black culture to give legitimacy to the Ku Klux Klan. Additionally, they seek to demoralize women in order to bring about tyranny not only in the USA but around the West. Additionally, they're the reason that women are so highly objectified. Why? The very condoms and birth control that you advocate!

Of course, the "1%" is obviously in control of the Democratic Party, albeit not 100% of them. See, there are people who stand up for freedom and there are people who want to lock the gates to prosperity. The former aligns to the Right. The latter aligns to the Left.

Also, you're sure supportive of children, with your calls to slaughter them en masse.

Now; objections?

(I've got to laugh at this escalation speed.)
I'm sorry but I do not entertain the opinions of someone who cannot convey their opinion without attacking someone else and I don't believe in debating those who are hilariously unintelligent. My post seemed to have upset you because the first thing you did was try to attack me personally, when all i did was point out that both parties have done wrong and further supported my argument. I did not attack you or make statements about you or your beliefs.

Furthermore, I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post as I am sure that the rest of it is just as fallacious as the first sentence. 

For a 16 year old, you are immature, ignorant and extremely misinformed. When you finally grow up and are able to conduct yourself with class, dignity and maturity and can say something other than puerile gibberish, then by all means, feel free to try again. Thank you and have a nice day.     :)
 
Alright alright that is enough, no need for attacks or calling people idiots. If you feel you must keep up that debate take it to PMs or some off site chat. Debates should be kept civil and respectful.

There is a billion people on this planet and a billion different views, deal with it all people.
 
froggyboy604 said:
Maybe schools can use more healthy ingredients like vegetable oil, and free run chickens to make tasty healthy food like fried chicken, and baking fries  and chips instead of frying them.
 
Oatmeal, Peanut butter, "real" chocolate, cereal, Pan cakes, Apple Pie, Orange juice, and Honey can be tasty, and healthy.
That would be a good start, but unfortunately some of these foods can be dangerous to those who have food allergies.
 
I think that if we just stop making food with artificial ingredients that our bodies cannot process as effectively as their natural counterparts, then that might be an even better step.
 
For example, the sodas in Canada are made with real sugar, whereas here, it is made with high fructose corn syrup. Our bodies can process sugar naturally and if too much of it has been consumed, then our bodies will let us know. But with high fructose corn syrup, it has been said that we will be able to consume much more than we would with sugar, because it would take our bodies longer to process it. The problem is though, it is a lot cheaper to make than regular sugar.
 
Although, if I'm honest, I am not even sure if that is true considering the fact that the government has been paying farmers not to grow their crops so that they can justify price inflation for fruits and vegetables. So I am sure that the issue of sugar being too expensive to produce is bunk..
 
Also, free range doesn't mean what you may think it does. It just means that the farmer can decide for themselves how much time the animal has outside of its pen. So while we might think that they are as free to roam the farm as people are free to roam their own surroundings, to a farmer, it could very well mean 5 minutes per day.
 
The way I see it, is children should not have healthy food forced up on them but more that it should e made freely available to them as a choice so that they have a choice but they should also know the difference between unhealthy and healthy food so that they know the difference. Children can quite easily make their own mind up but having the knowledge of which is better for you and which shoud be consumed once in a while will help their decision.
 
They should have an option.. like healthy food and not so healthy food.
But healthy food has to be good.
My buddy's uni has that system. It's great. There's a lot of healthy food there. Good food. So a lot of people who aren't students or teachers go there to eat.
Several schools here has that option too but the healthy food is so bad that you eat it one time and never eat it again.

Anyway, eat kids how to eat. Explain why they should eat well and let them eat alone.
 
Forcing people to something is never a good idea, it always ends up pushing them to do the opposite. I think schools should include campaigns about eating healthily, show the students how much damage to their body and health can do to eat fast food very often and with this, they could offer nice healthy food. I think it could work better and be a good source of motivation to eat healthy food than just forcing them into it.
 
Well, I am not so sure but the ideal answer is yes. Kids wouldn't know better and they should get the proteins and vitamins somehow. So, may be it should be this way but as a kid, I hated it.

So....
 
It's a duty to be healthy and I think it's ok to mandate shoolchildren to eat healthy lunches in school. It's a problem of strict monitoring though because the kids might not like the food and throw it away but if the school can come up with ways that can make the food more palatable then that would be great. This is actually a step in the right direction; especially now that kids get sick early in life of diseases that usually are for adults. Junk foods is junk or garbage and it won't do our bodies any good.
 
Back
Top