To an extent, yes. And that's a very good thing, since it would be immoral to have kids suffer even more than necessary from the bad luck of un-engaged parents. But, it's not just the parents who don't care. It's those who aren't in a position to help much, given their own lack of academic background and lack of resources. It helps to level the playing field for kids.
We know what's best for you and your children. Now shut the fuck up and get on board or there will be fines, penalties and/or increased taxes.
-- The Left
Then we should figure out why not, and remedy that.
It's immoral to expect those that already do for their kids to do because a kid's own parents won't do.
Let a kid's own parents level their kid's playing field.
Why do you support enabling freeloaders?
There's an easy remedy. If you want someone else's kid to have a hot meal, reach into YOUR pocket and buy it for them. See how easy that is?
What would make the immoral?
I'm happy to let them do so. However, when they don't do so, I'm not enough of a monster to just leave the innocent child to suffer.
I'm not. I just don't support using children as hostages to force behaviors on their parents. Why do you?
Demanding those that aren't the parents do what have no problem with those that are the parents refusing to do.
I'm not a monster.
I provided for the kids to which I had a responsibility.
No, you use those children to force others that aren't their parents to do what you're willing to let the kid's own parents not do. Why is that?
What's even easier, and vastly more efficient, is for us to pool our efforts by way of a government program. That's the benefit of living in a civilization: we can be greater than the sum of our parts.
I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say.
If you're willing to let innocent children suffer, when there are such simple and cost-effective alternatives, I'd say you are.
Humankind is your responsibility.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say.
Oh fuck off. I had school lunches most of Jr high and high school.
I don't. But I'm not so much of a monster that if the parents don't pay those costs, I'm willing to let the kids suffer for it.Why do you oppose parents paying the costs for their own kids?
I have no responsibility to any kids except mine.
Yep. We had actual cooks in the kitchen back then. We loved the "lunch ladies". Meat, fish, poultry, greens, rice, potatoes, desserts...all cooked THERE. Now it's all the frozen junk food I guess. They'd be better off bringing lunch from home. A simple sandwich, a fruit and drink.
I don't. But I'm not so much of a monster that if the parents don't pay those costs, I'm willing to let the kids suffer for it.
IDIOT! So what! We had meatless FRIDAYS for all of my12 years in the 7 schools I went to, all but one was PUBLIC, and only a small segment of the students were CATHOLICS. I guess that was some sort of RELIGIOUS tyranny too? The Papist kind! OHHHH NO!
There are some really dumbass people on this board. Hell, the best complete protein there is is to serve the kids up a combination of rice and legumes (beans)! And it's cheap, low fat but you just gotta spice it well.
You do. You're a human and so are they. If you reject the responsibilities of being a human, that's what makes you a monster.
Hell, the best complete protein there is is to serve the kids up a combination of rice and legumes (beans)!
You are willing to let those kids suffer.
You do oppose a kid's parents paying the costs.
If their own parents don't give a shit enough about them to do for them, their parents are saying they aren't worth the price.