Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Sunday April 09 2017, @06:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-soup-for-you dept.

What is “lunch shaming?” It happens when a child can’t pay a school lunch bill.

In Alabama, a child short on funds was stamped on the arm with “I Need Lunch Money.” In some schools, children are forced to clean cafeteria tables in front of their peers to pay the debt. Other schools require cafeteria workers to take a child’s hot food and throw it in the trash if he doesn’t have the money to pay for it.

In what its supporters say is the first such legislation in the country, New Mexico has outlawed shaming children whose parents are behind on school lunch payments.

Source: The New York Times


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday April 10 2017, @12:46AM (16 children)

    You're absolutely correct. Be happy to. But I can see how to do it without making slaves out of them, which is precisely what handouts do.

    Please enlighten us. I'm pretty sure most of us would like to break that cycle.

    It would be objectively good for society, both economically and socially.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 10 2017, @01:28AM (15 children)

    Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

    So, teach them. Don't make food/housing/etc... free. Make it easy for them to acquire actual marketable skills. Not college, something useful. And make it part of the K-12 education system so there's no excuses about not being able to afford it.

    Will it work for everyone? No. Nothing will. It's logically impossible to get rid of poverty with how we calculate poverty. It will work for those who give a damn about making something better of themselves though and the rest can starve for all I care because they sure as hell don't care if they do or not.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 10 2017, @01:56AM (8 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday April 10 2017, @01:56AM (#491435) Journal

      You don't get it, do you? You're telling people with varying numbers of broken bones in their lower bodies to participate in the triathlon. Get it through your carrion-eating beaky skull, Uzzard: once you fall below a certain threshold, *you cannot effectively participate in the economy any longer.* And yes, I am including "doing well in school" in "the economy" here, as many opportunities and much money is contingent on grades.

      The problem needs to be solved as early as possible, and one way you do it is not-goddammit-letting-kids-go-hungry. Do you not see the part where hunger makes them unable to study or learn? Where it makes their very brains and bodies not grow properly? We're not talking about just missing a meal here and there. We would spend a hell of a lot less on prisons, social programs, law enforcement, etc. if a bit of "preventive medicine" were applied. But no: you, and all your kind, would rather see them suffer now and damn the future costs, because something something free market blargle-whargle bootstraps hukka-ukka-urk-oorgh back in MAH day...

      One more time: go to Hell. You are not fit to exist in human society.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @03:54AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @03:54AM (#491494)

        It's all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.

        — Dr Martin Luther King, Jr

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 10 2017, @10:53AM (6 children)

        No, darlin, you do not get it. By treating them as if they are incapable of achieving without your help you are being a condescending cunt who views yourself as better than them.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 1) by ewk on Monday April 10 2017, @01:24PM (2 children)

          by ewk (5923) on Monday April 10 2017, @01:24PM (#491610)

          So... you don't want us to help you trying to become a better person then? :-)

          --
          I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
          • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 10 2017, @02:28PM (1 child)

            That'd be like a JV pitcher giving advice to Kyle Hendricks. I'm already a much better person precisely because I assume people are just as capable as I am of making a life for themselves.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @03:42PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @03:42PM (#491676)

              Wow.

              Narcissistic and out of touch with reality. Pretty sure that is THE definition of sociopath. Mighty Buzztard seems more appropriate.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 10 2017, @06:14PM (2 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday April 10 2017, @06:14PM (#491796) Journal

          Giving them enough to eat so that they CAN achieve is the precise opposite of what you're saying, and you damn well know that. Don't you get it?! In order for them to achieve ANYTHING, *their bodies must have adequate fuel, macro-, and micro-nutrients available to them!*

          Fuck you sideways. When you say "helping people means you think you're better than them" thing at ALL; you're projecting your own feelings in that situation onto other people, because sure as fuck YOU are so stunted and evil that the only reason YOU would help someone else is for the self-congratulatory tinglies.

          Well, guess what? Most of us aren't sociopaths. Most of us know Rand is full of shit. Most of us are social animals. And some of us, Uzzard, understand that everyone and everything is connected, and that in a very real sense when one of us is hurting we're all diminished. And I mean this on the level of plain old money, too; we let these kids suffer and fail, and we're gonna be paying for it dozens of times over in prisons, ER care, homeless shelters, social programs, you name it. This is not only the right thing to do morally, it's the right thing to do fiscally.

          Piss the hell off with this. You don't have a single original or useful thought in your corpse-defiling buzzard skull that doesn't relate to coding, and the entire community knows it.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @10:31PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @10:31PM (#491977)

            all those costs you name are more ills of socialism. of course your logic is correct, if we have to coddle them from birth to death. socialism is un-american. glad i don't fund the scum at the irs. people like you already have it spent wrong.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @11:42PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @11:42PM (#492021)

              Yeah, god forbid we feed the children who will grow up to be citizens. It would be SO horrible if we taught that that generosity and looking out for your neighbors is a good thing. Much better that we let them suffer throughout childhood, get a shitty job with their shitty grades, and then turn to crime when they see no other viable alternative. Yup, that sounds just about perfect!

              but but MAH MOOONIEEEESSSS! scum

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Monday April 10 2017, @02:04AM

      by tftp (806) on Monday April 10 2017, @02:04AM (#491438) Homepage

      In university quite a few teachers threw some optional assignments at us, like "by the way, what will happen with the spectra of these signals if this and that is done? Prove this to me, and you get one point. Get $n points over the duration of the course, and then from the $m questions at the exam you can pick and answer only $k." Students are always interested in such things. There is no loss to the education because each independently researched and proved theorem is worth ten that are copied off of the blackboard and then visually memorized.

      How can a poor child be motivated to earn his own lunch? By studying beyond the minimal norm, for example. Education is the mandatory job of children anyway. Poor children will benefit from learning far more than those born with various utensils in their mouths. Creative teachers can always put together a bunch of interesting assignments that entertain and educate. For example, an independently researched and delivered short lecture about "why is the sky blue," or some very gentle introdution to advanced math subjects, or some interesting facts about some book... perform the research, get a brownie point - a ticket for a free meal. That would be valuable to anyone if the saved money can be later spent on, say, ice cream... and will demonstrate that knowledge directly translates into wealth :-)

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday April 10 2017, @11:47AM (4 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday April 10 2017, @11:47AM (#491586) Journal

      I support teaching kids to be self-reliant. I do not think public schools in the US do a good job with that.

      But letting them starve during key formative years will make them physically unable to be fully productive as adults and stamp them emotionally with resentment and hatred so deep that it will express itself in any number of deletarious ways later. That does not make sense.

      Feeding and nurturing kids is always a good investment, no matter how you slice it, no matter what the cost.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 10 2017, @11:55AM (2 children)

        Nothing ever said before "no matter what the cost" is ever correct.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @05:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @05:03PM (#491742)

          Nothing ever said before "no matter what the cost" is ever correct.

          So you agree that a commitment to "free speech" no matter what the cost is incorrect.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @06:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @06:33PM (#491813)

          Absolutes, the phrases God looks for when he needs a laugh.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @10:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @10:36PM (#491981)

        i don't think anyone wants kids to starve but that's their parents' problem. However, if people want other people's kids to have food, then food charitiesshould easily have it covered. if not, then all the bleeding hearts are just generous with other people's money. Small towns could easily have community gardens where people grow their own food. instead, we steal from working people to feed them poisonous food. it's pitiful.