• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

Parents Refuse To Feed Their Own Children, Why Should I Have To Foot Their Bill?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SG854

Hail Mary
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
5,215
Trophies
1
Location
N/A
XP
8,104
Country
Congo, Republic of the
But lunch wasn't free then either.


(Relax, I explained earlier I'm ok with free school lunch.)
Free Lunch to kids isn't that bad to provide even for a Conservative. It's something I think everyone will agree with. it's just getting those parents that are bad parents to actually be parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hanafuda

Pakhitew-Island

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
177
Trophies
0
Age
30
XP
291
Country
Jamaica
Everybody pitching in to make everybody happy is an incredibly normal and reasonable (I'd even say obvious) way to do things. People are making two mistakes here:

1: Blaming the parents for being bad parents because they cant afford food is just bad. You cant really call people bad parents for being poor. There is a lot more to it than that

2: In an ideal situation, you wouldnt be spending all that much to pay for these lunches, millionaires and billionaires who literally have more money than they can physically spend in 10 lifetimes, will take a tiny bit of their profits and use that to pay for the lunches.

There is, quite literally, no downside to this.
 

SG854

Hail Mary
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
5,215
Trophies
1
Location
N/A
XP
8,104
Country
Congo, Republic of the
Everybody pitching in to make everybody happy is an incredibly normal and reasonable (I'd even say obvious) way to do things. People are making two mistakes here:

1: Blaming the parents for being bad parents because they cant afford food is just bad. You cant really call people bad parents for being poor. There is a lot more to it than that

2: In an ideal situation, you wouldnt be spending all that much to pay for these lunches, millionaires and billionaires who literally have more money than they can physically spend in 10 lifetimes, will take a tiny bit of their profits and use that to pay for the lunches.

There is, quite literally, no downside to this.
There are bad parents out there you can't deny it. One person in this thread gave an example of one.
 

SG854

Hail Mary
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
5,215
Trophies
1
Location
N/A
XP
8,104
Country
Congo, Republic of the
It isn’t @billapong keeps saying the poor are all scamming the system when infact as @WeedZ rightly pointed out its normally the exact opposite and is usually the rich that scam the fuck outta anything they can.
But this is a thread about free lunches which affects the poor. We know the rich scam. Just like anybody of any class scams. WeedZ pointed out the Rich scam, ok. And everybody hates them for that, there's enough threads about that and people fighting that. How does this affect people that scam the gov funds in the lower class that are in that situation because they're crappy people themselves. They can't feed their kids because of their own irresponsibility.

There are people out there that are poor because of their own fault, Yes or No.
 

nando

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
2,263
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
1,023
Country
United States
i had free lunches growing up, my parents worked hard. my mom died of cancer possibly do to the cleaning chemicals she had to use at work. and they payed their taxes too.

i grew up and was able to go to school because of free lunches, now i'm a home owner and i pay a shitload of property taxes to help other kids with their lunches. it's really messed up to go to a public school which is payed by taxes and bitch about a kid who requires an extra 2 dollars a day to eat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeedZ and yuyuyup

FAST6191

Techromancer
Editorial Team
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
36,798
Trophies
3
XP
28,284
Country
United Kingdom
You see, I use the roads that I drive on. I don't paying paying for something that benefits me or I'm remotely involved in or is my responsibility.

We already have systems in place for very low income parents, but the majority of the parents refusing to feed their children are simply doing so when they can afford to pay the bills, but simply don't want to. I'm addressing the parents simply refusing to because they don't want to. If you're a low income parent you simply need to provide documentation to the Schools to get reduced or free food for your children. That's fine, that's already taxed and payed for.

I'm directly addressing freeloading scum that think that passing another Socialism leading law is going to make the situation any better. Passing a national free lunch program is support these terrible parents who don't want to feed their kids be even worse parents. The end goal is socialism, but in the meantime laws like these only support bad parenting and encourage people to not take responsibility for their own, which in turn will instill these terrible values into the children who then think everything should be a handout and that they don't need to work or do anything and that everyone should just give them free shit. It's a cycle that I do not want to support.


Absolutely all of the roads? Even the dead end ones that only lead to someone's house on a hill somewhere?

Also does not having the general public not be drooling morons not benefit you?

Judging by the amount of fat cunts around people already fail to feed their kids -- if they can wind such lunches into nutrition then I would call that a win-win . As for the rest I can't get to this therefore that here -- you are going to need to qualify that one. As an alternative then plenty of places in the world ensure people get fed and watered and they are pretty sweet to live in.
 

billapong

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
265
Trophies
0
XP
300
Country
United States
Absolutely all of the roads? Even the dead end ones that only lead to someone's house on a hill somewhere?

Also does not having the general public not be drooling morons not benefit you?

Judging by the amount of fat cunts around people already fail to feed their kids -- if they can wind such lunches into nutrition then I would call that a win-win . As for the rest I can't get to this therefore that here -- you are going to need to qualify that one. As an alternative then plenty of places in the world ensure people get fed and watered and they are pretty sweet to live in.

Usually. yes. I go for 2-3 hour long drives a lot with no destination a few times a week. I just like to go out and drive, but also if I'm not personally driving the roads provide others who use them to bringing products or perform services the ability to do so. Plus, the roads only need to eat (be repaired) every so many years. You picked something bad to compare this situation to.

It's hilarious how I'm the bad guy, but the only group of people in this situation that are unwilling to feed the kids is their own parents. I'm fine with feeding them and then going after the parents for how much the meals cost and the schools generally feel the same way. I can't fathom the Liberal logic that goes into labeling me the evil one, when the kids own parents are refusing to feed them and then the Government wants to take my money to do so.

So the parents who are abusing their kids by not feeding them ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS and WE SHOULD SUPPORT THEM IN THE ABUSE? I swear Liberal logic would make Spock go on a mass shooting spree.
 

FAST6191

Techromancer
Editorial Team
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
36,798
Trophies
3
XP
28,284
Country
United Kingdom
Usually. yes. I go for 2-3 hour long drives a lot with no destination a few times a week. I just like to go out and drive, but also if I'm not personally driving the roads provide others who use them to bringing products or perform services the ability to do so. Plus, the roads only need to eat (be repaired) every so many years. You picked something bad to compare this situation to.

It's hilarious how I'm the bad guy, but the only group of people in this situation that are unwilling to feed the kids is their own parents. I'm fine with feeding them and then going after the parents for how much the meals cost and the schools generally feel the same way. I can't fathom the Liberal logic that goes into labeling me the evil one, when the kids own parents are refusing to feed them and then the Government wants to take my money to do so.

So the parents who are abusing their kids by not feeding them ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS and WE SHOULD SUPPORT THEM IN THE ABUSE? I swear Liberal logic would make Spock go on a mass shooting spree.
I don't disagree that society at large benefits from roads, just as society at large benefits from not having everybody as thick as pig shit. I see no functional difference there and if roads are OK under your logic then this follows too.

You know the phrase two wrongs don't make a right? This is an example of that in action. I am very much for people feeding their crotch fruit, and all for governments using a bit of carrot and stick action to try to enable it as far as the parents are concerned (if the child can't be expected to earn their keep), but if they are screw ups enough to dodge that then there is also benefit to getting them fed -- both from a humanitarian side of things and from a pragmatic side of things (hungry kids notoriously not paying much attention and either getting bad results themselves or distracting those others). Governments then being the prime players to enable this. If said government also wants to teach the kid about proper eating at the same time then so much the better (possibly quite literally -- any rich country I have been to where they teach people about food from school on up, and ensure it is good there, usually don't suffer the same epidemic of fat bastards).
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmandaRose

billapong

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
265
Trophies
0
XP
300
Country
United States
I don't disagree that society at large benefits from roads, just as society at large benefits from not having everybody as thick as pig shit. I see no functional difference there and if roads are OK under your logic then this follows too.

You know the phrase two wrongs don't make a right? This is an example of that in action. I am very much for people feeding their crotch fruit, and all for governments using a bit of carrot and stick action to try to enable it as far as the parents are concerned (if the child can't be expected to earn their keep), but if they are screw ups enough to dodge that then there is also benefit to getting them fed -- both from a humanitarian side of things and from a pragmatic side of things (hungry kids notoriously not paying much attention and either getting bad results themselves or distracting those others). Governments then being the prime players to enable this. If said government also wants to teach the kid about proper eating at the same time then so much the better (possibly quite literally -- any rich country I have been to where they teach people about food from school on up, and ensure it is good there, usually don't suffer the same epidemic of fat bastards).

Two wrongs? You mean the Government trying to force me to pay for dead beats and the dead beats themselves? Because, I'm not in the wrong here. I fully support feeding the children and then forcing the parents to pay, because that's what they should have been doing in the first place.

Sure, there's the actual poor people who can't afford the full price or the food what so ever, but all they need to do is to apply for assistance and then if they are actually poor they will get it. The assistance is based on your income and sometimes your assets. So if you're simply refusing to pay to feed you child when you're completely able to do so you're not going to get assistance.

If the irresponsible parents weren't being irresponsible we wouldn't have this problem and by simply saying "let's pass laws" will only support the irresponsibility. We shouldn't be focused on forcing people not involved in the situation to fix the problem. Why not focus on making the parents responsible for stuff they are supposed to be responsible for?

The problem is the bad parents. The problem isn't honest tax payers. The problem isn't schools with limited incomes. The problems aren't the current laws or the system set in place. The problem are the scum bag parents. They are the ones that need to be addressed and forced to change, not me.

So the Liberal solution is to create more laws and more taxes? Well, the current laws aren't being enforced and the current tax money is being misused. What in the fucking world would make you think that the new laws that would be passed or the new taxes would be followed/used correctly if we don't enforce the current ones? Seriously Liberals, you need to open your eyes as blindly following your emotions is destroying our country.
 
Last edited by billapong,

Osakasan

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
1,236
Trophies
1
Age
39
XP
3,132
Country
A lot of parents simply refuse to and cite financial problems, yet have no issues obtaining new Nike's or a new $800 smart phone every single year. The parents have no problem spending all sort of money every day to eat at McDonald's or buy their legal weed. It's not like most of them couldn't actually afford it, it's more of the lines they are refusing to any think other people should have to feed their kids. It's the responsibility of the parents to feed their own children. Not mine.

This post is "fuck you, got mine"

Not only you don't give a shit about others' position but also dare to spew crap like this.

You deserve getting some oye-opening punch in the face, OP
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted User
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
2,572
Trophies
2
XP
3,770
Country
United States
This post is "fuck you, got mine"

Not only you don't give a shit about others' position but also dare to spew crap like this.

You deserve getting some oye-opening punch in the face, OP
It's just an opinion. It may be slightly misfuided, but it's not worth wishing violence on someone over.
 

AmandaRose

Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it’s a plan
Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
10,168
Trophies
1
Location
Glasgow
Website
www.rockstarnorth.com
XP
16,076
Country
United Kingdom
This post is "fuck you, got mine"

Not only you don't give a shit about others' position but also dare to spew crap like this.

You deserve getting some oye-opening punch in the face, OP
As much as I disagree with absolutely everything @billapong says on the temp violence should never be the answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Subtle Demise

billapong

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
265
Trophies
0
XP
300
Country
United States
This post is "fuck you, got mine"

Not only you don't give a shit about others' position but also dare to spew crap like this.

You deserve getting some oye-opening punch in the face, OP

@Subtle Demise @AmandaRose

Unlike people who chose a dangerous life style and then bitch when they get hurt I can handle myself. I'm not scared of physical confrontation or the threat thereof. I'm not the type of the person who goes stands in the rain and then whines that they got wet. Sort of like the Civil War the Liberals keep threatening Conservatives with. I think they should reconsider their request because they actually might get what they want this time around and considering the are against fire arms and are a minority trying to lord over others they don't stand much of a chance.

@Osakasan I do care about others positions, which is why I started the thread. What I don't and never will agree with or care about is the Liberal point of view. They are the ones defending the parents who don't wish to feed their kids and trying to make me look bad because I support feeding the children.
 

sarkwalvein

There's hope for a Xenosaga port.
Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
8,505
Trophies
2
Age
41
Location
Niedersachsen
XP
11,199
Country
Germany
Unlike people who chose a dangerous life style and then bitch when they get hurt I can handle myself.
What is this supposed to mean?
What do you mean by a dangerous life style?
Are you suggesting that you choose a dangerous life style but you can "handle yourself"?
Are you suggesting that if you don't choose a dangerous life style and still you can't "handle yourself" is it ok?
Are you just trying to sound cool?
What is it? I don't see your point.

I'm not scared of physical confrontation or the threat thereof. I'm not the type of the person who goes stands in the rain and then whines that they got wet.
Again... what is this?
Are you trying to pretend some kind of grandeur because you are not scared of some void online ""threat""? (not enough quotes on this one, seeing how void it is really).
Are you implying that somebody that avoids physical confrontation or tries to tone down a situation and talk people into reason instead of going for the violence is less than you?

Sort of like the Civil War the Liberals keep threatening Conservatives with. I think they should reconsider their request because they actually might get what they want this time around and considering the are against fire arms and are a minority trying to lord over others they don't stand much of a chance.
Again, expanding on the one above, are you suggesting that your fellow Americans should arm to the teeth so they can get a chance to kill you and each other instead of seeking a way through reason to close the growing social/political rift? Seriously?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josshy0125

Josshy0125

Banned!
Banned
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
370
Trophies
0
Age
37
XP
753
Country
United Kingdom
What is this supposed to mean?
What do you mean by a dangerous life style?
Are you suggesting that you choose a dangerous life style but you can "handle yourself"?
Are you suggesting that if you don't choose a dangerous life style and still you can't "handle yourself" is it ok?
Are you just trying to sound cool?
What is it? I don't see your point.


Again... what is this?
Are you trying to pretend some kind of grandeur because you are not scared of some void online ""threat""? (not enough quotes on this one, seeing how void it is really).
Are you implying that somebody that avoids physical confrontation or tries to tone down a situation and talk people into reason instead of going for the violence is less than you?


Again, expanding on the one above, are you suggesting that your fellow Americans should arm to the teeth so they can get a chance to kill you and each other instead of seeking a way through reason to close the growing social/political rift? Seriously?
That whole "i can handle my own shit" is the same reason these repubs pose with guns and get hissy that their gun rights are getting taken away. Its insecurity masked by a false aid of confidence.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@Subtle Demise @AmandaRose

Unlike people who chose a dangerous life style and then bitch when they get hurt I can handle myself. I'm not scared of physical confrontation or the threat thereof. I'm not the type of the person who goes stands in the rain and then whines that they got wet. Sort of like the Civil War the Liberals keep threatening Conservatives with. I think they should reconsider their request because they actually might get what they want this time around and considering the are against fire arms and are a minority trying to lord over others they don't stand much of a chance.

@Osakasan I do care about others positions, which is why I started the thread. What I don't and never will agree with or care about is the Liberal point of view. They are the ones defending the parents who don't wish to feed their kids and trying to make me look bad because I support feeding the children.
Fuck off guy. Seriously. Youre clearly masking your insecurities behind the "im so tough" cherade. Youre like a 12 year old. Bet you pose with guns too because you think they "make you look tough". If you think violence and being "aggressive" is strength, then youre an absolute moron. Youre confusing strength with immaturity. Being keen on avoiding arguments, avoiding phyisical altercations and not liking war or aggression in general is the REAL definition of strength. What you're showing is flat out weakness and immaturity. Go back to posing with your guns in a sad small attempt to feel like a big man... idiot. Can we please ban this troll please? What if we all start reporting his shit? Im so exhausted from his idiocy and immaturity and unhealthy aggression and projection toward "the libs"...
 
Last edited by Josshy0125,
  • Like
Reactions: AmandaRose

SG854

Hail Mary
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
5,215
Trophies
1
Location
N/A
XP
8,104
Country
Congo, Republic of the
What is this supposed to mean?
What do you mean by a dangerous life style?
Are you suggesting that you choose a dangerous life style but you can "handle yourself"?
Are you suggesting that if you don't choose a dangerous life style and still you can't "handle yourself" is it ok?
Are you just trying to sound cool?
What is it? I don't see your point.


Again... what is this?
Are you trying to pretend some kind of grandeur because you are not scared of some void online ""threat""? (not enough quotes on this one, seeing how void it is really).
Are you implying that somebody that avoids physical confrontation or tries to tone down a situation and talk people into reason instead of going for the violence is less than you?


Again, expanding on the one above, are you suggesting that your fellow Americans should arm to the teeth so they can get a chance to kill you and each other instead of seeking a way through reason to close the growing social/political rift? Seriously?
The dangerous life style he lives is trying to get to work on time everyday without getting into a car crash. He's big tough guy so tough his nickname is Mr. TUFF
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmandaRose
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • Sicklyboy @ Sicklyboy:
    maaaaan that's so awesome but I also don't want to fork over a hundo for it
  • Veho @ Veho:
    The fuuuuu---
  • Veho @ Veho:
    I thought it was an actual xBox at that price.
  • Sicklyboy @ Sicklyboy:
    I wanna grab a 360 Slim and a 360 E one of these days. Missed the boat of getting them at their lowest though, once they were discontinued. Could've got them for cheap back when I was a broke 20 something working at Target, but then again, I was a broke 20 something working at Target
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Being broke is no fun.
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    @Sicklyboy, $150 isn't that bad for a jtag slim on ebay
  • Veho @ Veho:
    I only wish it was actually playable.
  • Veho @ Veho:
    There's a guy on the Tube of You that makes playable mechanical arcade games out of Lego. This could work on the same principle.
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Just a couple of guys taking their manatee out for some fresh air, why you have to molest them?
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Stupid Chinese shop switched their shipping company and this one is slooooooow.
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    STOP BUYING CHINESE CRAP THEN
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    SUPPORT LOCAL PRODUCTS, MAKE REVOLUTION
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    THEY KEEP REMOVING LOCAL SHIt AND REPLACING WItH INFERIOR CHINESE CRAP
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    THATS WHY MY PARTNER CANT GET A GOOTWEAR HIS SIZE ANYMORE
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    HE HAS BIG FOOT AND BIG DUCK
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    d*ck i mean*
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    lol
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Mkay.
  • Veho @ Veho:
    I just ordered another package from China just to spite you.
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    Leo could not withstand communism.
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    Its OUR products to begin with lol.
    SylverReZ @ SylverReZ: Its OUR products to begin with lol.