Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

huffpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 918 posts

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#831

Post by mobtrain »

mtnGoat wrote: post #758
homebrewer wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's absolutely right. As someone whose society suffered very heavy losses from the Nazis, this is the first thing that came to my mind when I read the root comment. It's like posting swastikas online and then dismissing concerned replies because "it's a Buddhist sign, what are you on about?"

I am the OP that used that word. I was unaware of this connection, my apologies. I will consider this if using the word in the future. I was aiming for the “not having basic human morals” usage of the word, nothing more.

I am glad to read this. (I am the originally - bit snarky - commenter about your use of the word, and do indeed live in Germany) .. my snap reaction my not have been worded the best it could have been :)

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#832

Post by hgomersall »

mech9879876 wrote: post #826
camgunz wrote: post #791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna do the point by point thing here, not because I think you really deserve it, but because I want you to really think about the arguments you're making. Will it work? I don't know. Do I know of a better way to do it? I wish I did. OK here we go. > Your method of argument relies on lumping all persons into one category. I literally broke people up into different generations, people who can work, people who can…

My main intention in my argument was to convince you that moral hazard exists in current social welfare programs. Judging by your statements, you were already aware of this, but rely on discussion points that deny it exists. Starting off an argument with such a clearly untrue line of discussion sets up pretty poor grounds for an honest talk. That's all I intend for this. There's room for agreement on some other point…

It existing is a necessary and desirable part of any rational system. If it didn't exist that system would either be too complicated as to not help those that need it and/or cost more to implement than is saved by eliminating the fraud. The correct amount of fraud is non zero: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#833

Post by asdf6969 »

em-bee wrote: post #828
asdf6969 wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A sandwich and a piece of fruit will probably be in the 400-800 calorie range. It’s absolutely enough food for 1/3 meals. Especially if the kid is also eating snacks

depending on age a child needs about 1400-3000 calories per day. the bulk of which should be eaten in the early part of the day when you are most active. 400-800 is not enough for that. the official US guidelines for school provided lunch range from 550–850. that's a bit lower than i would choose based on daily needs especially for older kids. breakfast and lunch should be more than 1/3rd each. dinner should be less…

3 meals averaging 600 calories plus a snack is completely reasonable. A sandwich is a meal. I don’t know what kind of sandwiches you’re eating in Austria but I don’t think it’s the same as me.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#834

Post by asdf6969 »

kccoder wrote: post #824
asdf6969 wrote: post #817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is an absolutely disgusting, immoral, ghoulish position.

My country (Canada) gives every parent money every month for each kid they have. It’s enough to pay for food, so there’s really no excuse to not feed the kid. We don’t have school lunches and it’s not a problem. Do you think Canadians are all ghouls?

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#837

Post by throwawayqqq11 »

nothercastle wrote: post #746
presentation wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the point of the Japanese way is to communicate that keeping public spaces clean is everyone’s responsibility. Paying kids for it communicates the opposite.

Yeah the op doesn’t get that. If you pay the kids then kids from wealthy families will think it’s not worth doing

> Outliers will be everywhere, you only have to select the right ones

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#838

Post by PaulRobinson »

erikerikson wrote: post #647
PaulRobinson wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "cultural toll" you talk of, is just another form of conformist behaviour that all societies have in different forms. Some countries have class/caste strata, others have a laissez-faire attitude to expectations in general, others have a rigid societal code, others appear to be less so but the moment you go near guns, abortion or taxation the societal codes and hierarchy spring into action and snap shut around th…

I upvoted this but it could really do without the last paragraph. Courts aren't telling us who we are or what we can believe. Trying to summarize our mess in so few words isn't something I'd attempt. Finally: many of us live differently and are doing our best to shift things more broadly.

Courts are not meant to tell us who you are what you can believe, but they are - by the SCOTUS' own admission - swayed by public opinion, and often support a narrative they perceive within wider society. The back/forth on abortion rights is a reasonable example.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#839

Post by PaulRobinson »

x-complexity wrote: post #808
PaulRobinson wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "cultural toll" you talk of, is just another form of conformist behaviour that all societies have in different forms. Some countries have class/caste strata, others have a laissez-faire attitude to expectations in general, others have a rigid societal code, others appear to be less so but the moment you go near guns, abortion or taxation the societal codes and hierarchy spring into action and snap shut around th…

As noted by an earlier reply ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43905660 ), I agree with the first 3 paragraphs. The last paragraph, however, is a launch in accusations, and will be treated as such. ---- > What's interesting to me is that you seem to think that the status quo in the US is rightly defensible. You're already reading into something that doesn't exist. The underlying cultural axioms of the US are, in…

The comment I replied to defended US individualism and criticised the Japanese "cultural toll". I am not "reading into something that doesn't exist", it's what I'm specifically replying to.

Cultural choices are indeed a mixed bag, that was my point: everyone has them, and they're different, and you have to make choices.

You might be right that partisanship occurs in alternatives to individualism, but my point is that individualism without a shared sense of society can accelerate partisanship. In the US, ironically there is tribalism (we now call them echo chambers, due to the dominance of media in this conversation), telling people that their individualism is being taken away. It's both what I'm worried about, and what you mention, in a feedback loop.

I maintain that compared to every other Western liberal democracy, this is not a great way to bring up kids. That isn't mud slinging, it's an opinion.

Re: I decided to pay off a school’s lunch debt

#840

Post by tomhow »

smeeger wrote: post #485
camgunz wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why I stake out such a strong position, so that positions like this poke their heads up. Individuals getting benefits when they're ineligible accounts for tiny amounts of the total fraud in these programs. Time after time we discover at least one of two things: - The effort/cost required to reduce fraud usually overshadows the cost of the fraud itself and also dramatically reduces the benefits of the…

[flagged]

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN