2-4 vegetarian lunches per month in the public school system

[Aimless]

Would you support or would you oppose a system where 2-4 publicly funded school lunches every month are required to be vegetarian meals? What would be the pros and cons?

[RandBlade]

Oppose. Nobodies ethical beliefs should be foisted upon others.

[Aimless]

Is vegetarianism only an ethical position based on views about the ethical status of killing and eating living things?

[littlelolligagged]

It's not foisting ethical beliefs on others to demonstrate to children that is possible to have a healthy, tasty, filling, and nutritious meal without meat.

I mean, cheese pizza is actually a vegetarian meal, do you object to that being served for school lunch? This isn't the most nutritious idea ever, of course, but it is served regularly at my kids' school.

[Ominous Gamer]

Is it not common for schools to offer options? Going through public school I always had the choice between pizza, a meat, or a salad.

[Flixy]

Is vegetarianism only an ethical position based on views about the ethical status of killing and eating living things?

No.

I'm not opposed to this. variation in the kitchen is nice and you'll easily end up cooking something vegetation every now and then. I don't see why a meal should have meat in it. Then again,I also don't really see why it should be mandated. Reasons I can think of is what Lolli mentioned, and that meat is pretty bad for the environment. Admirable, maybe, but let's focus on healthy first. That's enough of a challenge that won't get any easier when you throw the word vegetarian in the mix .

[Loki]

Would you support or would you oppose a system where 2-4 publicly funded school lunches every month are required to be vegetarian meals? What would be the pros and cons?

Would you support or would you oppose a system where 2-4 publicly funded school lunches every month are required to be meat-only meals? What would be the pros and cons?

[Flixy]

Would you support or would you oppose a system where 2-4 publicly funded school lunches every month are required to be meat-only meals? What would be the pros and cons?

Pro.. Support the cattle ranchers?

Con, meat only is not a healthy meal, it's expensive, you're forcing kids who can't/don't want to eat meat to eat it (where as a vegetarian meal doesn't make anyone eat anything they don't already easy).

What was the point of this question?

I do serve vegetarian meals to meat eating guests, I don't do the opposite. Meat isn't a holy part of a meal you know.

[Loki]

Trying to pose an ideological question as if it was an empirical one isn't very honest.

[Flixy]

Trying to pose an ideological question as if it was an empirical one isn't very honest.

As is posing a stupid question as a smart one, I suppose.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not quite sure why Loki posits that the question was meant to be an "empirical" one.

An empirical question is something like: "Does doing ABC result in a statistical meaningful XYZ?"

Unless my professors for Empirical Paedagogy have been lying to me regarding the meaning behind the term.

[LittleFuzzy]

Would you support or would you oppose a system where 2-4 publicly funded school lunches every month are required to be vegetarian meals? What would be the pros and cons?

It would depend on whose requirement it is. If a school or district decides they're going to make that many lunches a month vegetarian than they can go ahead. The kids will hate it but they hate meatloaf surprise and spaghetti days already, they'll survive. If it's the state or feds. . . then yeah, I think I've got a problem. It's not their concern nor is it their area of responsibility. At that level it's just smug political pandering and I frequently oppose that on principle. I particularly oppose using it on people who can't fight back, like minors.

It's not as bad as that attempt to require kids eat the school lunch and prohibit bringing lunch from home though.

[Aimless]

My reason for asking this question is that a recent study found that Swedish political initiatives to support things like "ecological" farming with public funds and the like had failed to meet their goals for various reasons. It was suggested that a more effective way to go a greener in Sweden would be to adopt a "meat-free monday" policy or the like for publicly funded institutions such as kindergartens and schools. Naturally it might also be a good way to brainwash a generation into eating more veggies and fruits and thus reduce the social cost of heart-attacks and strokes and cancer and whatnot but, you know, whatevs. Because "green" initiatives enjoy, in general, a fairly broad support among the Swedish public, I found myself intrigued by the possibility of being able to give them more and better green by making them eat more greens!

[Loki]

I fail to see the connection between encouraging children to eat greens and not giving them any meat. The typical meal in schools here has both. Can't say either part of it is particularly appetizing.

[Lebanese Dragon]

My thinking on this issue is schools need to get some accountants up in there lunch rooms. They need to figure out what healthy food options are available and use them, and take advantage of sales and foreseeable and spur of the moment deals.

They basically need to hire 1 chef, 1 nutritionist, and an accountant, have the accountant get paid a lot and serve on a wide variety of school projects, not just being responsible for buying food for the lunch room. I personally don't care about having vegetarian days, because meat is healthy for you. However, I do care that many schools think that nachos is a main entree, or Italian dunkers, or many other pure calorie no, no nutrion foods. Many schools do snack time during the day, I think that idea is great. There needs a lot of improvement to be done on this issue.

[Flixy]

I fail to see the connection between encouraging children to eat greens and not giving them any meat. The typical meal in schools here has both. Can't say either part of it is particularly appetizing.

If the concern is ecological, meat is far, far worse for the environment than vegetables are, so that actually does make sense.

[Loki]

Why not have the government simply ban meat for everyone? It's not like anyone would mind. Or is it only ok to ban things for people who don't have the power to complain?

[Ominous Gamer]

students complain, like all the time

but if we're taking rational "what ifs" and twisting them into extremes, lets not make any laws restricting the health or well being of kids, cause apparently they have no rights.

[Dreadnaught]

My reason for asking this question is that a recent study found that Swedish political initiatives to support things like "ecological" farming with public funds and the like had failed to meet their goals for various reasons. It was suggested that a more effective way to go a greener in Sweden would be to adopt a "meat-free monday" policy or the like for publicly funded institutions such as kindergartens and schools. Naturally it might also be a good way to brainwash a generation into eating more veggies and fruits and thus reduce the social cost of heart-attacks and strokes and cancer and whatnot but, you know, whatevs. Because "green" initiatives enjoy, in general, a fairly broad support among the Swedish public, I found myself intrigued by the possibility of being able to give them more and better green by making them eat more greens!

It's not unreasonable in theory, and has some tangible benefits in terms of helping kids understand the value of diversifying away from meat. I'm often frustrated at the meat-heaviness of so many institutionally-prepared meals.

That said, I worry that a specific mandate coupled with enough other mandates would simply snowball into a situation where kids were being served pizza, hunks of bread dipped in vegetable oil or blocks of government cheese because it was technically vegetarian.

A more straightforward, albeit possibly less effective, approach might just be government publicizing dietary guidelines. Lolbertarians would gripe about government attempts at social engineering and in many respects they would be right, but at least it's a suggestion funded by advertising (which is relatively cheap and straightforward) instead of a big unfunded mandate that may not lead to anything desirable when the kids sit down to lunch.

[LittleFuzzy]

Now that your context has been made more clear, Minx, I just outright oppose the measure. Our typical disagreement about social engineering.

[Loki]

Wasn't that much pretty clear from the beginning?

[GGT]

I'm old enough to remember Fish Fridays in public school cafeterias. It was a way to appease Roman Catholics and Vatican II doctrine, with a weird church rule about not eating "meat" on Fridays. Frankly, I didn't understand that, because I considered cafeteria fish sticks "meat" from an animal. Fish certainly wasn't a vegetable, fruit, legume, or dairy product.

It's not clear what "vegetarian" even means these days. People who eat eggs and dairy say they're "lacto-ovo vegetarians". Some people consider fish part of a "vegetarian" meal, because they're not eating mammal meat. And then there's the vegan variety vegetarian....who considers caseins and even honey to be off-limits.

Schools should simply offer a variety of foods that contain protein, calcium, amino acids, complex carbs, fiber, and vitamins. But ketchup shouldn't count as a vegetable.

[Aimless]

Why not have the government simply ban meat for everyone? It's not like anyone would mind. Or is it only ok to ban things for people who don't have the power to complain?

Why do you always turn to the same extremely retarded "argument" in every discussion? Do you not understand that it's retarded? Do you not understand concepts like compromise, negotiation, balance between conflicting demands, etc? maybe you didn't get enough vegetables in your diet during your formative years

[Aimless]

That said, I worry that a specific mandate coupled with enough other mandates would simply snowball into a situation where kids were being served pizza, hunks of bread dipped in vegetable oil or blocks of government cheese because it was technically vegetarian.

I understand your concerns because you live in the US

A more straightforward, albeit possibly less effective, approach might just be government publicizing dietary guidelines. Lolbertarians would gripe about government attempts at social engineering and in many respects they would be right, but at least it's a suggestion funded by advertising (which is relatively cheap and straightforward) instead of a big unfunded mandate that may not lead to anything desirable when the kids sit down to lunch.

While you and Fuzzy are focusing on the "social engineering" (brainwashing kids into being healthier) aspects, I see that only as a minor bonus. What I'm getting at is that the Swedish govt. (among many others) has, among other things, the mandate to greenify itself and its activities. In light of that fact, I wonder if the occasional vegetarian lunch may not be a more effective way to greenify govt. activities than eg. buying "ecological" meat products. Advertising is good, publishing useful info is good, but why should the government advertise to itself? The question was about lunches that are already paid for by the govt. with the money it's stolen from taxpayers

[Aimless]

I must say, btw, that I find the objection to "social engineering" in the context of schools to be a little bizarre. Social engineering is what 50% of school is about. Ask Lewk

[Veldan Rath]

And it has worked so well for us...the US.

[Aimless]

Well you're slowly getting a little better at not enslaving the blacks, avoiding hanging gays etc.

[Veldan Rath]

Yes that is all due to schooling. If schools can take all the credit for that, then I'll lay the blame of the knockout game on schools too...and gangs...and bullying, and my favorite: Zero Tolerance Policies!

[Flixy]

I understand your concerns because you live in the US



While you and Fuzzy are focusing on the "social engineering" (brainwashing kids into being healthier) aspects, I see that only as a minor bonus. What I'm getting at is that the Swedish govt. (among many others) has, among other things, the mandate to greenify itself and its activities. In light of that fact, I wonder if the occasional vegetarian lunch may not be a more effective way to greenify govt. activities than eg. buying "ecological" meat products. Advertising is good, publishing useful info is good, but why should the government advertise to itself? The question was about lunches that are already paid for by the govt. with the money it's stolen from taxpayers

That's also how I viewed your question.

[LittleFuzzy]

While you and Fuzzy are focusing on the "social engineering" (brainwashing kids into being healthier) aspects, I see that only as a minor bonus. What I'm getting at is that the Swedish govt. (among many others) has, among other things, the mandate to greenify itself and its activities. In light of that fact, I wonder if the occasional vegetarian lunch may not be a more effective way to greenify govt. activities than eg. buying "ecological" meat products. Advertising is good, publishing useful info is good, but why should the government advertise to itself? The question was about lunches that are already paid for by the govt. with the money it's stolen from taxpayers

As a health initiative it's actually less objectionable to me. It's only a few meals per month and normal day-to-day variety probably has that halfway achieved anyway. The socio-political Greenier engineering bugs me more.

As for your finding objecting to social engineering in schools bizarre, you find objecting to at all bizarre as you and I have established in multiple discussions. Having said that, I don't particularly object to education-based social engineering. I do, however, strongly object to overt behavior-modification and control.