|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: "Child Abuse" started by: TheCatt Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 05 2013,10:03
< School lunchroom says kids that owe money cannot get food >OK, this probably shouldn't have happened, but here's one parent's response: QUOTE "I told them this is bullying; that's neglect, child abuse," said parent Jo-An Blanchard. Really? No, it's none of those things. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2013,10:18
Neglect is not giving your child a way to buy lunch. So yeah, she's right.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 05 2013,10:21
QUOTE "I told them this is bullying; that's neglect, child abuse," said parent Jo-An Blanchard. You forgot to mention racist. Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2013,11:08
QUOTE "I told them this is bullying; that's neglect, child abuse," said parent Jo-An Blanchard. Whoa, that's stretching the definition of that word. "Parent" I mean. QUOTE Five cents of debt was enough for cafeteria employees at the Coehlo Middle School to instruct kids at least one day this week to dump out the food they would have normally eaten... Uh, wait ... you just prepared the food and dumped it out? Explain how wasting what the students didn't pay for is evening the balance sheets. QUOTE Principal Andrew Boles apologized and blamed the culinary company (Whitson) ... "Employees had taken it upon themselves to institute this change; it was not condoned or approved," said Whitson spokeswoman Holly Von Seggern. "We had absolutely no idea." Workers in the school's cafeteria work on a contract basis, Boles said. One of you two fuckers is lying. Since I'm assuming the parents are indebted to the school and not the culinary company, I'm inclined to believe they're the fuckers. QUOTE Kids with a negative balance usually receive "a cheese sandwich, a fruit and vegetable, and milk." Then the company contacts the parents about payment. Then again, they aren't using the word "school" in that sentence. Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 05 2013,11:29
Ah.... from FacebookQUOTE Yeah, Geoff. I'm sure that if the parents could have they would. And it is exactly what that mother said. "Bullying", because the peers of those children saw them leave the lunchroom without eating. Gives kids already inclined to be little shits even more of a reason to make fun of kids who are already probably made fun of for being impoverished. "Neglect" because these children, who probably don't get the best amount of nutrition at home, are now being forced to go for at least seven hours without eating a thing. And "child abuse" because a group of adults made the conscious choice not to feed these children.
I'm actually kind of knocked out by your statement, "Maybe their parents should have paid for their children's food." It's like saying, "Maybe their parents should have paid more attention at school so they could have gotten better jobs." It's a really elitist, presumptuous thing to say. Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2013,12:03
QUOTE "Maybe their parents should have paid for their children's food." It's like saying, "Maybe their parents should have paid more attention at school so they could have gotten better jobs." It's a really elitist, presumptuous thing to say. When the Thought Police are founded, their job is going to be so easy. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2013,13:06
(Malcolm @ Apr. 05 2013,15:03) QUOTE QUOTE "Maybe their parents should have paid for their children's food." It's like saying, "Maybe their parents should have paid more attention at school so they could have gotten better jobs." It's a really elitist, presumptuous thing to say. When the Thought Police are founded, their job is going to be so easy. If you are so poor that you can't afford to give your kid lunch money, then you are poor enough to qualify for food stamps and pack your kid a bologna sandwich. I don't see any good excuses, here. Somewhere along the line, feeding their kids is not high on the parents' priority lists. Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 05 2013,15:13
For the record, this is not back woods Mississippi we are talking about here, it's Massachusetts. According to the stats on Wikipedia, the city in question is almost entirely made of white middle-class residents, and there is very little poverty. The single largest developed piece of land in the town is the snobby country club. The odds are very high these aren't poor students, they're students whose middle-class parents are too busy or forgetful to pay to renew their lunch credits. There is not a single hint in the article to indicate these children come from poor or struggling families. Frankly it's far more elitist of your Facebook friends, TheCatt, for them to assume it's about these kids being poor based on nothing whatsoever but their own prejudice. Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2013,15:43
What if they bus in poor kids from outside, for demographic purposes?
Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 05 2013,16:13
Yeah, I simply responded that he made a lot of assumptions to get to that argument, to which he replied "Fewer assumptions than you made"Um, no. No way. But whatever, not worth an Internet fight. At any rate: about 1:6 students at that school get free lunch, so they could not have been the ones impacted, right? 54 students (out of the remaining 556, so about 10%) get reduced lunch. I guess it's conceivable that all 25 students who didnt get lunch were in that group, but c'mon. Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2013,18:26
Again, if the parents can afford to feed their kids lunch but don't and/or forget, then their priorities are fucked. If they can't afford it, then there is government aid to make sure their kids eat.I see nothing but parental failure, here. |