Category: Let's talk
Some websites on the internet claim that our civil liberties are being eroded by the governments of countries where we live, and that governments are using terrorism as an excuse for eroding civil liberties. There are of course, websites which disagree with those websites. I’m not interested in what websites, the media or activists have to say.
I want to know whether you feel that your civil liberties have been eroded by the government of the country where you live? I’ve highlighted the word your, because I’m interested in your personal experiences regarding civil liberties. Do you feel less free now than you have in the past? If so why? What civil liberties that you took for granted have you lost?
If you feel that your civil liberties have been eroded, have you done anything to resist or rebel against the erosion of your civil liberties? If so what?
Personally, I don't feel that I am less free than I used to be. I can still do all the things I want to do. I can't think of any civil liberties that I have personally lost.
I must admit that they are compromised. Thanks to 9/11 I am treated like a terorist and while I am all for security measures and so on, I feel that the government has gone overboard.
Which of your civil liberties has been compromised Margorp? When were you treated like a terrorist? Did you complain about it? If so, how was the complaint handled?
Well let's see:
Every blasted time I sen or read an email, I know that under the patriot act, that my data can be flagged for any reason. I don't bother to complain because if I do, I'll bet I'd be tossed in the slammer...freedom of speech is dwindling.
Great topic!!! my civil libertties are being limited in the following ways;
constantly hearing and reading propaganda about fat people and obesity as the evil of the century. pretty soon we who are large and in charge will be tarred with the same brush as the anti smokers.
seeing opinions given as news. it used to be that reportage was nonbiassed. now, both sides have their advocates and their slants. the whole truth lies somewhere in between.
government is regulating more and more of our lives. from when our kidsshould start school, to if we should spank or not, etc. etc., nanny government has an opijnion.
i could go on and on but these are just starters.
I do agree with Margorp that security measures, particularly in airports, have gone overboard. isn't it a civil liberty not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure? Well, this is only happened once, but there was a time when I was picked for a random search. Now, besides walking in with a passport, a plane ticket, and luggage, what could I possibly have done to cause them to want to search me. I know they mean well by "random", so I guess it's a matter of deciding what's more important.
Other than that, as far as the government is concerned, I really can't complain. many countries have it worse than mine. People in general have sometimes violated my rights in minor ways, but that's for another topic...
Margorp - can you tell us which emails you've sent that have been read by the authorities without your consent? What action did the authorities take against you, that made you aware that specific emails you've sent have actually been read? Or is this just stuff you've read/stuff that's in your head?
Turricane - I see your propoganda argument as proof that I am free. Though we are told that we should be healthy, and we are discouraged from doing things that are bad for us, I am certainly free to access propaganda in favour of eating lots of food, and doing other things that we are told are bad for us.
Regarding your point about news coverage, the media isn't all state-owned, so the media can be as biassed and unbiassed as they want to be as long as we are free. There has always been bias in the media, and there always will be. If there wasn't, that would be proof that civil liberties were being eroded.
I don't recall a time when you didn't have to send your kids to school. While education has been compulsory, children have had to be in education by a certain age. How has the state punished you for smacking your children or not sending them to school, or is this all just stuff you've read/stuff that's in your head?
Ocean Dream - the search may have been compulsory, but what freedom, other than the freedom not to be searched (which by the way you never had anyway*) have you lost? Apart from the increased likelyhood you may be searched at airports, what impact has the legislation that increased that likelyhood had on the rest of your life?
*If the police wanted to search your house years before you were searched at the airport, they could have. If you were a sighted driver and they wanted to stop your car to search it, they could have. So for as long as you have lived, the authorities have had the right to search you. They have even had the right to search you in airports.
To answer your question:
Every blasted one. It is a fact.
Oh and another thing, what is with all the rifraf I must put up with just updating my non-driver's I D? I mean, here I am, a citizen...clearly not out for destruction of the capital building or anything and I get the run around.
Every single email? Who has time to read every single email sent by every citizen of your country?
What has been done in response to each email you've sent? It seems strange that the authorities are letting you continue sending emails when they are so concerned about your emails that they contact you about each one.
Oh no you don't understand.
I urge you to read about the patriot act. Basically our rights are beeing over-ridden.
I'm aware of what documents say, but I like to judge things based on people's experiences, and I have not noticed the erosion of any of my civil liberties. I feel as free as I have always been. I don't feel less restricted than I once was. This is all based on my personal experiences.
I've read so much about how governments are restricting their citizens, but had I never read any of that, or heard anybody say that the government is taking away our civil liberties, I wouldn't have noticed. Surely if the government was restricting me, I would have noticed without reading anything on the internet.
Senior, I agree that mostly, we are free. The airport example is really a moral thing rather than legal. Some people take great offense for being searched as if they are the prime suspect of a terrorist atack, but legally, the government is really okay here. Morally, however, i still stand by my opinion that security in airports needs to be toned down somewhat.
this is one of the most thought-prevoking topics that I've seenn anywhere in awhile. Outwardly, it seems that my civil liberties are the same. I can still rant and rave, can wear what I want, eat what I want etc. But they are, in my opinion, slowly being eroded. Even the right to free speech is slowly being taken away due to the stupidity of political correctness. Jobs with one title are now forced to use another. People are afraid to speak lest they offend someone. People can be arrested for saying the wrong thing, nigger, for example. There's censorship on television in america far more so than in many european countries. People can't even make jokes without being sued or called racists, sexual harassers etc. Of course, such people do exist, but things have gotten out of control. The people are being brainwashed into obsessing about their health. Everything has to be low fat, no fat, reduced fat, low in this or that... healthy, for people to eat it. I'm not saying that caring about your health is a bad thing. I myself steer clear of foods containing hormones and antibiotics. But I don't think that it should be pushed as an agenda to the exclusion of taste and preferences. if I want to eat deep fried chicken and french fries and drink soda, I don't need some health nuts telling me that the chicken has too much fat in it, that the potatoes aren't nutritious enough and that the soda has too much sugar. It's my body and my choice and I'm not hurting anyone by eating as I like. I'd like to see normal things on tv and in stores for a change, including organic ones, which, many times, cater to that bullshit. Likewise, the right to smoke in public is being stolen. While I do believe that there should be separate places for smokers and nonsmokers, we're being discriminated against, all over the world, in the name of health again and, many times, bogus studies. The security measures in the airports in america are ridiculous, all put in place to combat so-called terrorism, when the government knew what was going on all along. Even if it didn't, scaring the general public and forcing insane restrictions on them isn't going to help the situation. In the end, they're only letting these terrorists and so on win. If I can't bring normal things like food and drink onto a plane or have creams, shampoos etc. in my bag, or if people can't bring life-saving medications because they're liquid, if I can't have a normal-sized bag and have to pay extra for a carry-on, if I have to get there hours before the plane is supposed to take off just so that they can rifle through my things and practically strip search me, how is this supposed to make me feel any better? I've only gone by plane once since September 11th, and wasn't treated that badly, but I was also much younger and with my family. We did have to wait a ridiculous amount of time though, which shouldn't be the case. But back to freedoms, some states, New jersey included, still have stupid blue laws. For instance, in my county, you can't buy clothing or furnature on sundays. While it's not a new threat, it's one that's extremely out-dated and needs to be removed. Other states/towns have even more insane laws like not being able to put your clothing on a clothes line and so on. finally, there's the patriot act, as has already been discussed. Admittedly, I don't know much about it because I haven't looked it up yet, but from everything I hear, this is a very bad piece of legislation that can ultimately take the freedom away from everyone, without any reason, if the government/law enforcement chose to do so. But I do believe that the government should take a role in education so that children can start learning when they're young. But even there, we must be careful. If the teachers are so tied to cirricula and can't teach anything outside of what's required for standardies tests, that is also an inacceptible thing.
Being brainwashed into being obsessed about something isn't in my view an erosion of civil liberties. People are brainwashed by all sorts of things. They choose what to believe and what not to believe. That's the way it's been for thousands of years so I don't see how it is an erosion of civil liberties.
Regarding free speech, I don't know anybody who has been arrested for saying something that offended somebody. I know governments have taken action to stop people abusing others because of their race, sexual orientation, disability, religion, etc, but those laws don't affect me as I am not abusive. There's nothing civil about being uncivil, so in my view, such laws aren't an erosion of civil liberties. As for what's said on TV/radio, that has been restricted for decades.
I don't deny that airport restrictions may cause people inconvenience. However, it seems to me that restrictions at airport are the most frequently given example of an erosion of civil liberties. If airport inconveniences are the most obvious example of civil liberties being eroded, we can't be as restricted as some would have us believe.
The majority of responses to this discussion have been about civil liberties in general, even though I wanted personal responses specific to the people responding. This suggests to me that the erosion of civil liberties is more a perception than a reality.
The worse people appear to have experienced themselves, is inconvenience at airports. None of you appear to have lost any of your other civil liberties. Though you can give other examples of civil liberties being eroded, you have no personal experience of it. It's just what you've heard or read, not what you've experienced.
If people are brainwashed to believe one thing, it's easy to take the other option away or to demand that they conform to a certain standard. To use the food example, forcing restaurants to serve food with less salt, as was discussed in anothe r thread, is certain taking away people's civil liberties to choose and the chef's decision-making abilities. Charging more for health insurance bwcause of a person's weight because the government doesn't do anything to stop it, while granting freedom to the companies, takes the freedom away from the people to eat as they choose. I'm not talking about those with serious medical conditions or who are extremely overweight who need a fork lift to get them out of the house either, just those over the so-called norm. How long before the government says what we can wear or say? Me personally, I can't smoke in a restaurant or in a bar. I also can't fly the Greek flag on my house without the American one beside it, which is why I sadly don't fly any. This is a New Jersey state law, not a national one. The flag code itself is not enforceable, but NJ decided that it would take matters into their own hands and make it a crime to fly a foreign flag, even when the country it represents is not a threat or an enemy to the United States. Punishments could include heavy fines or imprisonment. Now exactly how much this law is enforced I don't know, but either way, it takes away my personal freedoms.
Well obviiously it doesn't take away your personal freedoms because you haven't seen the law being enforced. If nobody told you about the law and you didn't read about it, it would be as if it didn't exist.
If restaurants are being banned from selling certain foods, then that is an erosion of the civil liberties of those who own them. However, people are still allowed to eat unhealthy foods. They just have to buy it elsewhere.
This seems more an erosion of civil liberties than an erosion of your personal civil liberties. I assume you don't own a restaurant and you haven't been in trouble with the authorities for serving unhealthy foods.
It is an erosion of my civil liberties if I ask for a dish and it's supposed to be made or served in a certain way but it can't be due to regulations. as for the flag, I haven't tried it yet, so don't know if the law is enforced or not. I also haven't met anyone who has, so can't ask them.
I have to address a few points. First, senior, I have to disagree with something you said in a post toward the beginning of this discussion. the police, in fact, could not search your house or car without your permission. they had to have credible cause and permission from a judge to search your house, and if you were pulled over, they had to have your permission to search your car. Where as, in the airport, if you do not agree to the search, you will not get on the plane, which has not been in the law books, and actually still isn't directly worded out, before 2002, just after 911.
then, since you are asking for personal examples, which is reasonable in this discussion, I will tell you a couple. One, many taxes are being raised or increased on certain things that are deemed to be unhealthy. Not because the government wishes to levy more money from taxes, but to discourage people from using those products freely. While that is not an exact control, it is a discouragement, which is one step below a control. I have experienced this in everything from sweets and baked goods, to soda, to tobacco products. plus, when I say tobacco products, I do not mean just cigarettes, I mean any tobacco products. Even those that are shown to have very little physical impact, like cigars or pipes. In addition to the fact that the studies released that mainly effected these laws and caused them to be inacted, was faked by the EPA in the mid 90's.
the second relates to the tobacco products. I have been kicked out, refused service, and told I could not sit in certain places, because I was smoking. I have been told I could smoke a cigarette, but not a cigar. I've been told I can't smoke a cigarette or a cigar inside a public building. the list of things I've been told in different cities across the country is nearly endless. I've experienced many laws in my many travels and places I've lived.
Most people would say this is to prevent the smoke from being a public nuisance. However, I don't remember the freedom from being annoyed appearing in the constitution of any state or the federal government. If it were, I would submit people who talk too loudly at restaurants, and who don't make their children shut up at movie theaters to the list. Those are things that annoy me to know end. However,neither of them are illegal. Only smoking is.
Finally, the issue of guns. In 48 states in the united states, people are allowed to carry guns concealed. However, they are sometimes not alllowed to take them into restaurants or malls, or any number of other buildings. They are given the right to carry them to protect themselves, but that right is taken away when they enter a certain building. College students, who are legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon on the streets of a city, are not allowed to take that gun onto a college campus. That is stripping someone of their rights,s and while it has not yet happened to me personally. I can tell you it is not just a matter of belief, it is a fact, you can look at the rule books of most colleges, and they will say, "No guns". The same is said for malls, restaurants, and so on and so forth.
so, that's my two cents. HOpe you enjoy it. Good topic.
Beautiful post. I couldn't agree with you more, except on guns, since I believe in gun control. But yeah, it's unfair how they stereotype us smokers but do nothing about the other "annoying people". alcohol, for example, is far more dangerous than smoking, and most places allow people to drink. Restaurants even serve it to people. I, for one, don't want to sit next to a loud smelly drunk who could potentially become violent. I've never heard of driving under the influence of tobacco. As for searching property, I looked up the Patriot Act the other night, and the police can search your house/car without your permission and without a court order all on the premis that you could be a terrorist.
In the UK they can search houses and vehicles without going to the courts first. Anyway Somebody searching my house wouldn't make me less free than if they weren't searching my house. The police have never searched my house.
Regarding the food issue, you can still eat the unhealthy foods, just not in restaurants which can't serve it. As you don't work in the restaurants, your civil liberties aren't been eroded. You're being inconvenienced, and discouraged from eating unhealthy food, but not prevented. The civil liberties of the owners of the restaurant are certainly being eroded.
I've never been allowed to take guns where ever I go, and I can honestly say I have never felt oppressed/restricted, like I was being denied my civil liberties because I didn't have a gun.
As much as some of you may think you should be entitled to do whatever you want, unfortunately, some of these restrictions are in place for the good of the public. If you saw someone walk past you with a loaded gun, wouldn't that make you feel a bit uneasy?
To all you smokers out there, I'm not dissing the habit, but a lot of people with asthma would argue that their civil liberties were being eroded if people were allowed to smoke in public places. Pregnant women could argue the same.
As far as the healthy food is considered, it's up to you whether you choose to let it get to you. Nobody is forcing you to watch these commercials. If someone around you is preventing you from eating what you want, that is their fault, not the governments.
To the original poster, it seems that you are confusing not being inconvenienced by restraints posed by the government, with the erosion of your civil liberties. More than anything, this is showing a submission to authority rather than pointing out the flaws in the arguments of others, as you have attempted to do. As a personal account, I will tell you that whenever I travel, I am not only restricted to eat, drink, and carry with me what airport security and federal regulation will allow me to carry. If I want an apple, I can have one as long as it is sold passed the airport security gate, for example, and as pointed above, if I wanted to carry cologne with me on a trip, I would either need to purchase a bottle passed airport security or carry a couple of those small samples often given out in fragrance shops.
When I ride the subway, I am hoping not to get stopped by a security search: it has happened to me before, and personally I do not wish for strangers to go through my items without any cause whatsoever. Random security searches, in this country are illegal, being somewhat exempt from questioning by the legislations put in place after 911.
You do not wish to look up any websites which could be informative, you wish only to want hearsay, which seems a suspicious way to ask for information being that no true evidence could be presented in this way. However, you can look up food liable laws and food defamation laws in the US and see that even before 911, personal liberties have been slipping on the most part due to corporate influences: these laws prevent individuals and organization from publicly speaking out against unhealthy, unsafe foods and vegetable, and industry practices.
I will say however to the smokers that it’s not an annoyance concern which has made things difficult for you; it’s a safety and comfort concern. I as a non-smoker, do not wish to breathe, smell, or have the scent of cigarettes on my person unless, I, make a decision which says otherwise. This is very different from a baby crying in a movie theatre, unless that baby is not only crying, but throwing up on you and is in need of a change of diapers.
The concern with healthy and unhealthy foods is somewhat more difficult to assess. The food and drug industry has been passing on inferior products to the American people, and it has been people who have asked for more regulation of these products. So yes, one could say that by these regulatory measures our choices have been somewhat limited, but on the other hand, one could say they have been expanded, as providing more information on health and nutrition for example, has allowed for people to discover different ways of thinking about their diets and overall health.
Well, a baby crying in a theater would be kind of annoying, as people come there, and pay, to watch the movie, but this is why they turn the sound up pretty loud. Yes, if parents know that their children are causing a disturbance, the considerate thing to do would be to take them out of the theater, but again, this is not the government causing this violation of a right, but the parents who might not be thinking about how their loud child might affect others around them.
OK Sure - which one of my personal civil liberties have been eroded? Surely if any of my personal civil liberties were to be eroded, I would notice, without having to rely on the internet, or hearsay.
I know that there are websites which will tell me that I am losing my civil liberties, and there are websites that will tell me I am not losing my civil liberties. The internet contains so many perspectives. However, rather than rely on what websites, the media, or other people tell me, I think it is best to rely on my own personal experiences. If for example, a new law came into effect banning people from stepping out of their houses between 10 PM and 6 AM, and I was jailed for being on the streets at midnight, then in my personal experience, I would have lost a civil liberty I once had. I would notice that a right had been taken away from me.
I do accept that if I was to go to an airport I would be searched, but having a filling at the dentist is more painful than being searched. I don't see how being searched would mean I was losing a civil liberty. I believe I would still be as free to do what I want to do as I would be if I wasn't being searched. So please explain to me how being searched would make me less free?
That's really scarey, that you'll only admit to losing civil liberties if they happen to you personally. It's thinking like this that ultimately leads to these liberties being lost. As for food, while I do agree that companies should list the ingredients on their foods, and while I'm personally against hormoans and antibiotics in my foods, I think that the overall media etc. is making people hate themselves if they're 1 lb. overweight and don't fit the stereotypes shown on tv or if they stray from the healthy path as it were. while this is not directly because of the government, I do think that it's an example of how people can be swayed to think negatively of themselves and follow the mainstream, a fact with any government could use to it's advantage in more serious issues.
Hello senior, again I will point out what is mentioned above and Tifffanitsa has somewhat echoed. You seem to be confusing a personal account of inconvenience, with the loss of a civil liberty. To use your own example, you wrote that: “If for example, a new law came into effect banning people from stepping out of their houses between 10 PM and 6
AM, and I was jailed for being on the streets at midnight, then in my personal experience, I would have lost a civil liberty I once had.” Well, what should happen if you are one of those people who goes to bed at 10: pm? Even though you are not personally being inconvenienced, and therefore do not notice a liberty being taken from you, it is still a liberty lost.
The problem with this type of thinking is that while you are not feeling the loss personally, it is still taking place, and it might come to pass that one of these new reduced liberties, will, have an immediate effect on your life and personal experience. So, while you might not care about being searched on an airplane or subway, or not care about your telephone and other types of communications being intercepted by the government, it still takes place, and one day you might find yourself unable to post topics like this on an online community message board. As it’s been said before, the reduction of these liberties and the acceptance of these reductions by the public only leads to a more accepting and willing people, who wish not to question their liberties and simply comply with authority.
And yes, on a different note the media while trying to be more health conscious is actually demonizing those of us who might have a body type which does not match the perceived ideal of healthy. I’m not saying that one should feel great with the knowledge that they live a life of pure unhealthy eating indulgence, but that one really shouldn’t be made to feel shamed of their body type.
I am with tiff. It seems that the U K and Canada are just dandy but let's open our eyes folks.
We are constantly intruded on by "big brother."
The media is always going to try to suck you into their views. This doesn't mean you have to believe and/or agree with it. In fact, there are small, but conscious efforts, in the media, trying to contradict the common media perception that you'll never amount to much if you're over a certain weight.
senior, i fear you will have to hear a rant my dear. I'll try to be sane and calm.
First, of all, I find your attitude of "was it something you read or is it in your head" extremely condescending. Since you don't know me, I will tell you that any opinion I have is based on the facts as I see them and it is backed up as much as possible with facts.
In the united states, they are trying to lower the age of compulsory school attendance to four or in some cases three years of age. Obviously, they didn't read their history, because this was tried for years in russia until they found out that kids did very poorly with regimentation. For The first four to five years of children's lives education is life and life is learning. To thrive and grow they need play time and siocial time.
In the united states where you do not live, some states are saying that compulsory education means that it has to take place in government sponsored or endorsed schools. tIf a parent decides to home school, he or she will be breaking the law and be fined and/or imprisoned. Tbhis is because many kids who have learned at home are faer more accademically advanced and astute than their government educated peers. Additionally home schooling and private education threaten the tax base.
tif i totally agree with you about the low fat no fat can't offend blah blah blah lifestyle. a fearful people is a cowed populace.
senior in your country it may not be so but in the great state of california they want to instill a sugar tax and anti junk food legislation. excuse me, but that's wrong. we should be able to eat wherever, whenever, and whatever we want.
silver lightning right on. i didn't know that 48 states has concealed weapons laws. wi live in the dc suburbs and the nations capital is a gun controlled place. what a joke. one of the highest murder rates in the country too.
In New York State, about an hour north of me I think, they have a "soda tax." I feel that is just stupid.
It is really a tax on corn syrup, which is already taxed...oops getting a bit off topic but you get what I am saying. It is stupid.
margorp, that's not altogether true. sodas like kosher for passover coke and pepsi throwback are made with sugar.
Tiffanitsa – not only am I still free to say what I want to say, go where I want to go and do the things I want to do, but I haven’t witnessed anybody losing their civil liberties. I have no evidence that any politician is aware of my views. I don’t know any politicians and I don’t believe any would recognise me if I went up to them and asked them if they knew who I was. Therefore, I disagree that my thinking is causing other people to lose their civil liberties.
Regarding your other point, the media can only influence people as much as they let it. People have more power than they choose to use. The media hasn’t had much influence on me, but if it did, that wouldn’t mean I was losing my civil liberties, because I am as free to decide what and who influences me as I am to decide not to let media and people influence me. So much for my civil liberties being eroded.
Anyway, I think it’s a bit hypocritical for people who complain about losing civil liberties to suggest that the media shouldn’t be able to demonise people. If the media stopped the media demonising people for being unhealthy, the civil liberties of the media would be eroded. A free media is usually a sign of a free society, one in which civil liberties aren’t being eroded.
OK Sure – the example I gave regarding curfews would be a real civil liberty being lost, as there may come a day when somebody who hasn’t stepped out of their house after 10 PM needs to do so, for example if there is a fire. If that situation occurred, the person would definitely be more restricted than currently, because we are currently free to step outside our houses if there is a fire, even if the fire occurs after 10 PM.
The acts that people often use to support the claim they are losing their civil liberties have been implemented for some time. I’m sure if they were going to affect me, they would have by now. I haven’t read any of the acts, and I am yet to meet anybody who has. Perhaps we are so free that we are able to do more enjoyable things. Having nothing better to do than read those acts would represent a real erosion of my civil liberties.
If I was suddenly prevented from posting on discussion boards because of my views, then obviously that would represent an erosion of my civil liberties. But while I am still free to do that, that civil liberty hasn’t been taken from me, so I’m not going to become hysterical about the possibility that it will be. If I became hysterical about all the bad possibilities, I’d be so afraid, that I wouldn’t be able to enjoy all the many civil liberties I have.
I have not seen any evidence that people around me would accept erosions of their civil liberties. If they were banned from watching certain TV channels, banned from going to see their friends etc, there would be protests against the erosion of civil liberties. In countries where civil liberties have been eroded, such as China, Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia, there have been protests, so even more reason to conclude that people would accept losing their civil liberties.
Turricane – if they’re lowering the age of compulsory school attendance, there must already be an age of compulsory school attendance. Therefore there is an age at which children are not free not to go to school. Why is it an erosion of civil liberties if the age is lowered to 4, but it is not an erosion of civil liberties to tell a child at/above the current age of compulsory school attendance “you must go to school”? Either the right of children not to attend school or receive an education is a civil liberty which must be protected, or it is not, and parents have a duty to send their children to school at an age to be determined by the government. The latter approach is more responsible. If we just thought of parenting in terms of civil liberties, children would grow up not being able to talk because it was against the civil liberties of their parents to teach them. So the government must balance civil liberties with a duty of care. Sometimes it may get that balance wrong, but the alternative of only been concerned for the protection of civil liberties would be very scary.
The governments of the states which are outlawing homeschooling can be voted out and replaced by a government that will repeal the legislation if the majority of the electorate are so opposed to having to send their children to school. The people of those states still have the right to vote. Some homeschooled children may have more civil liberties if they were in public education. Some children in public education may have more civil liberties if they were homeschooled. All children would have more civil liberties if education wasn’t compulsory.
In California, you’ll still be able to eat what ever you want. It may cost more, but Californians can use their votes and their right to protest if they oppose the legislation. Only the unemployed can eat when ever they want (presuming they have/can afford food), and nobody can eat where ever they want. You couldn’t, for example get into an ambulance which had come to collect a seriously ill neighbour and start eating loads of unhealthy food. You can’t oppose being refused access to an ambulance in which people are dying so you can eat unhealthy food, while complaining that you don’t have enough civil liberties.
We live in societies in which consensus matters more than civil liberties. However, we still have the right to vote. If the majority of people felt that they had lost their civil liberties and losing their civil liberties made them angry, they would vote for parties which would give them their civil liberties back. In the US they had the chance to elect a president who would repeal all legislation ever passed against civil liberties, and they chose Barack Obama. The majority of those who didn’t choose Barack Obama chose Jon McCain. The two candidates with the most votes were not candidates who were going to repeal the civil liberties US citizens have apparently lost. That is why I believe the people who feel they are losing their civil liberties rely too heavily on information in the media and on the internet.
In the UK we have an election some time in the next three months. Civil liberties won’t be an issue for me, and I don’t know anybody who will vote against the current government because of civil liberties they have lost. Legislation which leads to an erosion of civil liberties affects the entire electorate, so if such legislation had been passed and we all felt oppressed, I am certain we’d all do something about it. I know I would.
I'll agree that many people are very gullible. I, like you, pay no attention to the media. But I'm also sure that the mainstream media gets support from the government, from politicians, from lobbiests and from various companies to say certain things. While this is less true of the nonmainstream type, most people listen to your standard reporters, unless they're really internet savvy or want a different opinion. Even I usually stick with the athens News Agency, which is hardly nonmainstream. It seems to me that, so long as you're personally not affected, civil liberties aren't being lost. Very interesting.
O wow. Antisugar laws? That won't go through. I'm almost sure of it. Speaking of that, the government of the province where I live actually banned the handing out of anything junk food related in schools. I couldn't disagree with that more. It's not like the teachers are handing out bags and bags of potato chips every day to each student, and if they want to treat their students sometimes, shouldn't that be up to them? Besides, it's not like students don't bring candy and chips to school and hand them out themselves, if the teachers aren't allowed to do it.
Also talking about schools, my sister recently had her Ipod stolen at school. While it was later found, and given back to her, my mother was firmly told by the staff that due to confidentiality issues, they couldn't tell her the student's name who did it, even though they had complete proof. They said it was dealt with. Well, excuse me, but I think the parent of a victim has the right to know what became of the incident. Even if she can't take action herself, she should at least be able to know who it was, and what happened. For all she knows, that student could be still out there stealing Ipods, and goodness knows what else. I understand why the staff don't tell other students of such things, because these sorts of things tend to get twisted around, but when a parent wants to know, that's a different story. It's not like most parents have the time to go walking through the halls telling everybody they see what happened, and who did it. Okay. Rant over.
oh the anti sugar faction is alive in kicking in canadian schools too. in our county it is now against the law to have cupcakes or birthday cake in elementary schools. it is unfair to diabetic children. excuse me, but what ever happened to these kids learning to deal with their problem and just say no. what is wrong with their parents not providing some kind of alternative for them.
i will not address any more of senior's points of view. obviously he/she is the arbiter of intelligence and his /sher opinion is the only correct one.
All of this is absolutely sickening. Pretty soon, we'll all return to children must be little adults and can't play but have to work. It's no one's damned business what we eat or do. If we wanna stuff our faces with candy and chips that's our Gods-given right. As for stealing, I'm the type of person to teach my child self defence so that he/she could find the person and deal with him/her. Stealing is unacceptible in my book.
We've never had a situation in which the government insisted that children must be little adults. The civil liberties people complain are being eroded weren't being eroded when children were little adults.
I accept that governments pay for their message to be spread by the media, but so do all advertisers. All people who express views in the media and on the internet want others to be aware of what they think, and that includes people who are in government. Expressing views, and paying for views to be spread is proof that we still have our civil liberties. If we lost our civil liberties, the government wouldn't have to pay for its message to be spread, because it would own the media.
It's not a case of me not personally being affected, but I am yet to see anybody being deprived of their civil liberties. If the majority of people I knew had their civil liberties eroded, I would be able to see that for myself, and even if I still had mine, I would acknowledge that in general, civil liberties are being eroded.
I know for example, that when I am watching Huddersfield Town play Oldham, if the crowd think the referee is a wanker, they will be free to say so, even if local politicians are present, and even though there will be police and stuards there to make sure people aren't fighting etc. If repeatedly saying that reduces the referee to tears and he never referees another match, nobody will be punished. The next day, you will all maintain that we have lost our civil liberties.
Media views and law are two completely different things. The media is not forcing you to do, or not do, anything. They're just being rather up front with their views, which is one of their civil liberties. Now, if it becomes the law to follow the media, then this conversation will travel down a completely different path.
You're missing the point about schools and food here. At the very least, this civil liberty is being taken away. parents can't give their children birthday cake etc. to take to school and teachers can't give out chips. Only governmentally-acceptible food is being allowed. Yes, children can still bring in these things, but for how long. What you fail to realise is that, in america at least, civil liberties won't disappear over night. It's the little things like this that start it off.
Well, that's different, because it's being forced upon you. If someone, say on the news, or something, tries to tell you what you can and cannot eat, you can just tell them where to shove it. Lol. You can't do that at schools.
parents can, by taking their kids out of there. But I know what you mean. the media is just annoying.
Schools are slowly banning junk food. Soon we'll see vending machines where you put in a certain amount, push a button, and an apple pops out. That is something kids really don't want. Besides, to echo OceanDream, it's not like they don't bring the snacks in anyway. It's this whole political correctness thing and this war against the heavier members of our society.
They're already starting to do that health thing with vending machines. That's even more ridiculous, because you get only what you pay for in those, and if it's your money, you can do what you damn well please with it.
I echo Jess's last post completely; it's getting fucking ridiculous now!!
Next thing you know, you won't be able to buy anything but fresh food in stores.
It's so stupid.
Hello Senior, I'm curious as to how the ability to travel, in your perspective, isn't one of the most important freedoms which we could possibly have? You said: "However, it seems to me that restrictions at airport are the most frequently given
example of an erosion of civil liberties. If airport inconveniences are the most obvious example of civil liberties being eroded, we can't be as restricted
as some would have us believe.
" I am not quite sure why you have created the topic, as this seems like a board for you to express your convictions, which obviously you are unwilling to seriously examine.
You have also stated: "I know governments have taken action to
stop people abusing others because of their race, sexual orientation, disability, religion, etc, but those laws don't affect me as I am not abusive. There's
nothing civil about being uncivil, so in my view, such laws aren't an erosion of civil liberties." what does this example have to do with the original question posed? This is an example of equality, and an attempt to challenge a socially constructed supremacy among certain groups. If you had been one of these uncivil people taking part in the above,you would again come to the same pattern of thought which is: if I am inconvenienced, then it is an erosion of my civil liberties.
As for free speech being slowly decreased, I did point you in the direction of food liability laws. It's up to you to look them up.
I'm not sure if you guys are aware, but an 8 year old with diabetes is a serious problem, when you have thousands of these cases that problem is now an epidemic. If cakes are not allowed in schools, it is not because of restrictions, it is because of sensitivity to differences between children. Kids can still have these snacks, however, they are having them by bringing them themselves, or eating them at home. Basically, government funded institutions such as schools do not want to be held legally responsible for adding to the issue.
Okay, but Vending Machines are different, since it is the person's choice what to buy, and what not to buy.
I doubt that, in the longrun, it'll make a difference. If these rights are stripped away in restaurants, schols etc. then vending machines can't be too far behind.
So restaurants and vending machines can't sell junk food because they don't want to be responsible if the food causes problems, but the tobacco companies are allowed to add thousands of toxic chemicals to cigarettes? I just really can't see the logic behind that at all.
Ok, senior, you obviously have no idea how the government in america works. I would just like to point out this little seemingly obvious fact, the United Kingdom, and the United states, are very different places. We have been since 1776, or 1783 if you take that view of history. To say that we could have elected a president that would have repealed any law whatsoever, would be to say, "You could have taken your constitution, ripped it into tiny bits, and burned it". the president cannot repeal laws, it is not his/her job, and he/she does not have the power to do so. Any president that says they will, is either lying, or doesn't care about how our government is set up. Either that, or you completely misunderstood the campaign speech all together.
also, a civil liberty and a right, are very diffierent things also. A civil liberty is something we all can do whether we choose to or not. A right is something "god given" that, in the views of one country, anyone has, whether a citizen or not.
If any of you want to, you can look up the bill of non-rights, its a good thing to keep in mind. My favorite is, you do not have the right to not be offended. Think about that.
I think any country´s government has to take a stance. Not so much on civil liberties as such, more how much to actually care about the citizens (of course it can be viewed as control, fair or not, and the abuse of such fundamental powers is always a risk that people need to be aware of).
Hence, I think, the most severe removal of a civil liberty is to take away the right to change the government or to have fair and free ellections, since it gives people a chance to remove a government that is not representing them (look at all the African countries where the president changes the law so he can stay in power indefinitely rather than for 4 years, well, African and Asian countries mostly).
Any government sets rules and decides its control is needed in some aspects of their citizen´s lives.
Here is where you will have to disagree or methods and extent of how involved the government chooses to get.
Being brought up in a small European country the idea of allowing any junk food in schools is alien to me. Junk food was even banned within a certain radius of schools, about a quarter of a mile, for the longest time. The population has had the highest life expectancy in the world with little weight problems and generally excellent health. These rules have been changed in the name of freedom and the life expectancy has dropped marketdly and obesity is increasing at a scary rate.
Kids do not want healthy foods, they do not consider consequences of their actions much and they establish their eating habits at that age. Isn´t it responsible to teach them about those things, try to keep them with a fair chance of a halethy life until they are old enough to understand the choice and then let them make their decissions. Their parents can´t do that while the kid is at school so it is the school´s responsibility to do so.
If the tax payers money is spent on deep fried lunches and chocolate that causes all sortsof health problems for the kids, it is their responsibility to change the policies. In my experience this should be encouraged and I think it is a great idea, the big snack and soft drink companies pretty much owned the schools before, and since the school decides what vending machines to allow (and they are being paid to allow vending machines), they are responsible for what students choose to buy there.
I mean, why not have a liquor store at school, people should be free to drink, even if they are 8, or 5,, or why not sell heroin or at least pot between classes, pot kinda makes you relaxed and shit and most people say it´s less dangerous than cigarettes.
For some reason people think one idea is outrageous and the other is a must protect right.
And if you should have the freedom to not have health insurance, shouldn´t the government have freedom to deny you treatment at thehospital, that´s fair, I think, fair for those who do have insurance and get sick.
I did not know people were allowed to bring kids to the movies, I thought afternoon shows were family shows but then restrictions were on later shows, as I believe they should be.
I have travelled hundreds of times by plane after 9/11, even less than 10 days after (that time I missed a bus, got the wrong terminal and checked in 20 mins before takeoff, believe it or not I made it on the plane). I have never found my cevil rights threatened, except by the special assistance people who force me to sit in a wheel chair and to wait for two hours after landing. It is not the government though but private enterprise hiring dirt cheap contracts who, in turn, hire low paid workers who do not care about the job and do not even speak English .. if government regulated this we wouldn´t have this type of service.
I do not understand why the government is not allowed to read my emails or listen to myphone calls. I have nothing to hide from them, or others, and they´d never get round to it anyway, the sher volume of data makes it completely impossible to listen in on random phone conversations or emails, I guess they may scan for certain words or phrases or monitor certain people, and I am sorry if I do not feel too badly about Arab immigrants being monitorred in this country. It is sad and I wish it hadn´t come to that, but, unless you buy into government conspiracy, you feel only they would be "crazy enough" to kill themselves and blow up thousands of people in the process. Sure, it is just 0.01% of them, but it is still probably a million times higher than that of the other races.
But the problem here, of course is, why not track black people or hispanic people because their crime rate might be higher than that of the white population.
What I do think is fully justifiable and should be done is to record people´s DNA at birth and, especially, if a man is convicted of a crime the government should be allowed to track him, at least if he were on parole or had committed a sexual crime, so they can monitor his whereabouts if other crimes occur.
I feel it is loss of civil liberty that my credit card company can share my payment problems with the world, with other companies and my employer, to me that feels like a lack of freedom and too much state control.
With gun laws, again, I do not see why people are allowd to carry guns in public, there´s no need for them and having the weapon makes it that much more likely they´ll be used.
But, like I am saying, it is just perspective from a foreigner coming here, this is what I feel is a problem or isn´t and I just offer it as a perspective, not as an all knowing declaration of where you are going wrong.
ok sure,
Diabetes is a serious and life threatening disease. Type one, or child onset, is the most damaging. correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't learning self restraint and self control part of the maturation process? A child who has diabetes needs to learn that he or she can not eat things that are off the diet. It's that simple. Expecting the entire world to cater to them is cruel kindness. So, because I am blind, do I expect that all tvs movies and cars should be banned. No way no how. I have learned to adapt and so should they.
I'm alergic to kiwi, and I shouldn't eat it. Does that mean that schools aren't allowed to serve things with kiwi in them because they might be held responsible if I get an alergic reaction? Certainly not.
The thing about this whole healthy eating in schools thing is that schools should not hold the sole responsibility for teaching kids how to regulate their diets. While school is a place where a child spends a great deal of his or her time, it should really be up to the parents to show their child such things, as I believe this will have a longer lasting influence. As schools are taking a more authoratative stance on everything from junk food to standardized testing, students naturally resent the greater level of control, especially as they grow older. In elementary school, i do think it's reasonable to teach students about healthy eating, but it should be presented in a light, age-appropriate way, without the use of scare tactics or banning of certain foods. This way, it will be a friendly concept that they'll be more likely to take with them into adulthood, but more importantly, into their homes.
If a family environment completely clashes with the school environment, I.e they're constantly binging on junk food and fast food, wouldn't that basically undermine the lessons that child learned in school, especially if the school was an environment the child considered unfriendly? It seems to me that the parents should take an active role in teaching their child right and wrong, moderation and overindulgence. Parents passing their responsibility off to the schools to do their job for them makes me sick, and is the main culprit behind these laws that restrict junk food.
The last time I checked, birthday parties, even celebrating Valentine's Day was something fun young children could look forward to, a break from the monotony of work that restless minds want to get away from. By taking that away in the interest of a minority population, those with diabetes, you are in essence saying that those children are taking away a privilege you had, causing resentment in the rest of the children. Also, having a cupcake in class once in awhile is not going to make that child go crazy and eat every unhealthy thing they see, it's just a reward which is a healthy system to have in place. Adults reward themselves from time to time by indulging in something, whether it be an expensive dinner, a night out, or a shopping spree, so having fun by eating a few cupcakes is the alternative for children. By taking this away and expecting children to just stay away from the "bad stuff" you're not only causing resentment, or worse yet, blind obedience to a media-driven ideal, but but also increasing the chances that when they become teenagers, they'll just start eating the junk food to rebel, much the same as they experiment with drugs or alcohol because it's forbidden and it's "fun." Speaking of teenagers, by the time kids are in high school, these restrictions should be relaxed somewhat. There should be both healthy and unhealthy choices in cafeterias, so they learn how to effectively choose the right things. If they eat candy and chips a few times, it's not the school's fault, because there were other things they could have picked. Besides, most kids do want some variety, so they're bound to change what they order once in awhile. But by stripping away that freedom of choice, you're basically saying, "society and the government knows best, and you, the stupid children, can't decide for yourselves what's right and wrong." That is extremely degrading, but the school system is becoming that way in general, but that's another topic.
Sadly, schools have thier hands tied by the local governments.
screaming turtle!!
you get my vote for the intelligent post of the day. Your points are right on.
So many of my friends who are teachers get totally annoyed with parents because "the school should teach blah blah blah." Excuse me, butin elementary school, the child is in class six hours a day with less for lunch. the rest of the time the parents are doing what? Oh my goodness, they aren't doing their jobs and laying the blame on teachers. my, my, my.
Yes, that's my main annoyance with schools. A child has a teacher for a whole year, and then the next year they move on to another one. Teachers can have a powerful influence, whether it's negative or positive, but the family is there for life. In the home is where the most serious learning should take place. That's how it was for me.
Yes, perhaps parents are getting more lazy?
Oh, if school feeds kiwi to someone who is alergic to it and that child dies, you know who is going to get sued, probably for millions of dollars. In the system of settlements and frivillous law suits it's easy to see parents sue the school for a child's heart attack, alergy related death, bullying etc, and the schools have some responsibility in this area certainly.
But the kids always do have a choice, their parents can get them treats, celebrate their successes etc, it is not the school's job to do so.
And it is, perhaps, excessive if all junk food is to be banned from the school. My understanding was that schools were merely promoting and offering healthy choices, as healthy foods were effectively not even available in some schools, which is surely wrong.
Young kids do not have the maturity to make choices and their parents cannot really affect what the school offers, so the school has to stay on the healthy side of the food offering and leave it up to the parents to provide the treats.
If it goes as far as banning foods completely I can see how it may upset people, even if I don't have a problem with that.
This being said, I do not agree with this above 7th or 8th grade, and certainly not in high school. At this age kids are able to make choices and need to learn responsibilities.
I saw what complete drinkig ban did for college kids. Every single one of my suite mates had at least one, mot two, passing out puking all over the bath room, episodes in their first couple of weeks as a freshman, all sorts of 21 shots for your 21 birthday challenges etc.
I had had wine with dinner, a few beers and such since I was 14 or 15 and never found the getting drunk stuff remotely interesting, fun to get buzzed, and I still think it is, but never this over-the-top crazy drinking binge.
Very well written screaming_turtle.
HI all, while schools should not hold all responsibilities for the welfare of a child, while they are in school, that child is the school’s responsibility. If you are allergic to kiwi, and you have kiwi from school lunch and get sick, yes, it is the schools fault. Remember, in school, there are records kept which have allergies on file.
I understand that a school is a place of learning, and is no substitute for the home and family environment, but as we put more strain on parents, work ours and other responsibilities, more and more of that learning will be picked up by schools. Unless of course, we start working less and having more time for our families.
I’m curious, what choice does a 6th grader have, if the vending machine in his cafeteria offers him carbonated drinks and potato chips, and for lunch that child is offered a greasy burger and fries? Sure, you can eat that if you want as an adult, but again, in this country we are all overweight, and it’s not just because we decided we all wanted to be this way.
I am all about choice, but I am about realistic choices, a grilled chicken sandwich or a greasy burger, a good salad or some fries, for example.
We are biologically programmed to want fats, sweets, and salty foods, and if you think that learning self control is part of a child’s upbringing, you are right, but there is a reason why kids go crazy for pizza parties and not tofu breaks.
This board has completely gone off topic by the way. We seem to be very passionate about food.
Sure, as you stated, we are biologically programmed to want unhealthy things, but I still think passing off responsibility to people who aren't always responsible themselves, or sometimes don't have the child's best interest at heart, is just as bad as the parents not educating them. In a typical public school classroom, there are anywhere from 30 to 40 students, and this number keeps increasing. Why, then, is it reasonable to expect teachers, who are underpaid and overworked, to take over where parents either by laziness or circumstance left off? Really, this passing the buck to someone else is ridiculous. While I agree that a child should be positively influenced by their teachers, that doesn't always happen, and when that's the case, the parents better step up and show that child healthy choices. If neither environment teaches this, where are they gonna learn it from?
hahahaha Totally agreed. But it's very interesting to say the least. It makes me laugh how all of this used to be okay, but now, all of a sudden, it's not. I'm not the type for low or reduced fat anything. But I do think it organic and free range food were given in schools, it would dramatically decrease the weight problem. You can eat a burger and fries, and they can be greecey, so long as they don't have hormoans, antibiotics, preservatives etc. in them. Also, Americans are notorious for putting all sorts of toppings, like ketchup, mustard, mayonaise etc. on things. Personally, I always get my cheeseburgers plain. I could never get the point of drowning things in so much extra flavour that the original taste disappears. As for soda, many of today's soft drinks are made with corn syrup instead of regular sugar. this is another bad thing. There's no reason on Earth why regular sugar shouldn't be used, except in cases of drinks made for diabetics etc. Even then, zylitol is a perfect substitute.
Another thing they could try is to use olive oil. You can have alot of greasy foods that way without most kids knowing the difference.
First, ok sure, to say that we are all overweight is a gross generalization. I am five-eight and 125 pounds, certainly not overweight. do I eat unhealthy foods, absolutely. I love a good burger and a nice cold beer as much as the next person. do I get fat, no, for two reasons. One, I was blessed with a biochemical set up that does notlet me get very fat. Second, I get off my ass and do things. If children in this country would get up, and stop playing video games and doing all those activities that involve sitting around doing nothing, and actually got outside and played like we did when we were kids, they wouldn't be quite so fat. If you look at the percentages of "over-weight" children in the past century, you will notice that the number greatly increased in the last ten years.
Second, wildebrew, I give you that in some countries, the government must take a stand, but in this country, and I mean america when i say that, our government is not designed that way. It is a government controlled by the people, or its supposed to be. it is not up to the government to support us, and wasn't until the 1930's. It is a government for the people of the people by the people. For the people does not mean to give them everything they need and to hold their hand while they go about destorying their lives. It means that the government raises a military to protect the people, and levies taxes to build roads for the people. It does not mean that the government deccides what you can and can't, or should and shouldn't, do with your life.
Whether it is food, drinks, cars, cigarettes, alcohol, or travelling, it should not be up to the government to decide, it should be up to you. If you think that the government is only invading public places, I give you this. In california, it is illegal to smoke a cigarette or cigar in your own home, if you have a person under the age of eighteen living with you. In four other states, they are debating laws about whether you can smoke cigarettes in your own home. So be careful about where you think the government is.
Finally seniro, you said you didn't worry about a civil liberty being taken away if it doesn't effect you, you don't go around worrying about it all the time because you'd be paranoid. this is a valid point. However, I don't go around worrying about getting hit by a bus, but I also listen before I step into the street. Your civil liberties may not be in jeopardy at the moment, but if you don't pay atention, one day they will be. and when they are, it will be too late for you to stop it.
oh, and one more thought. A government large enough to give you everything you need, is also large enough to take everything you have. that is a quote from thomas jefferson, who knew a thing or two about government.
you people who advocate natural and free range in schools make me laugh. many of you are the same folks who scream bloody murder if taxes are raised. the options you advocate are much more expensive then the ones purchased by our schools today.
you also may not be aware but most of the school lunch programs are subsidized by the department of agriculture food and nutrition bureau. this government intervention came about because in the depression children were passing out from hunger. during that time, My mom worked in a one room school housewhich was located in a mining and farming community. many of Her students and nationwide a horrendous number of moms and dads couldn't afford to feed their families but one meal a day. My grandma would often make "leftovers" so she could bring them to those who went hungry. Grandpa had a job so they felt they could share with others.
In my area we have immigrant families who still have this issue. They won't ask for free lunches because "someone else with a real problem might need them." So the cheap lunch is more than likely the only substantial food they receive.
If free range is used the price will have to be raised, which means the child suffers, or the taxes go up which means their parents will suffer more.
If the parents don't like what the cafeteria offers, they can pack or teach sam or sally how to prepare a lunch every day. That way the child can have whatever they want. A cafeteria lunch is not necessarily a necessity. If someone has the disposable income to whine about it then they can switch their priorities and take 15 minutes or less to make something acceptable.
thank you silver lightning.
the generalization that we are all over weight is a gross one. 8 million americcans suffer from anorexia. often this is spawned by an overconcern with the physical appearance and the overweening desire for success.
So, Turricane, youa re saying if you are poor enough and your child is getting fat from being fed only fried chicken, pizza and potato chips, you deserve it? If you are rich enough to give the child a choice, then you ahve a choice as to what your child eats. And that is exactly why lunch programs at schools should be healthy, if you want to whine about it and feel your child is being treated unfairly, bring him a KFC for lunch.
To clarify my position, I do not buy into this whole free range, all natural crap, it is usually a tactic for tripling the price of an item in the store without any health benefits.
What I am saying is I think the pizzas and burger and fried chicken should be offerred carefully, may be as a Friday treat, and more of the food in school should be fruit, yogurt, grilled chicken, wholewheat pasta, rice based dishes, eggs etc.
If you give the child of, say, 7, a choice between grilled chicken and hamburger, guess which he'll choose, at least on 99 times out of a 100. And what's wrong with just offering water at school, perfectly fine drink for all and as cheap as they come.
That being said, may be school lunches are not that bad, we only know about day care ones, and they are fine, pasta, hot dogs, grapes etc. Both our songs love grapes mostly as a result of day care meals, they could just as easily love snickers if that is what they were fed.
I've also had the experience of two university dining hall plans, where I studied it was awesome, different meals every day, pasta station, always fresh salad. I vsitied my friend who studied at an unnamed university in South Carolina, his meal plan was to get $5 or $6 credit to a dining hall stand consisting of Pizza Hut, MacDonnalds and a fried chicken place .. this every day, he gained 16 pounds in his freshman year and then decided to not purchase a meal plan at the university.
But, athat's enough food talk I suppose, it is making me hungry anyway.
So, enjoy, fried chicken y'all.
I have to completely agree with you there. No one does anything anymore. Sitting at the computer or playing video games is hardly a substitute for going out and playing ball, jumping rope, climbing trees, running etc. I think that children don't know how to really be children and parents don't know how to be parents. My mother actually works in food service in a program that's trying to teach the children about fruits, vegetables, grains etc. Most of the children in the school are very poor. So many couldn't get these things on their own. The really good thing about it is that, whenever possible, they get locally-grown food and they always buy organic stuff for the kids. As far as I know, this is a state-sponsored program. I agree that the government shouldn't decide what you do with your life. But this argument sounds like a total antisocialisation one to me and I can't agree with that in it's entirity. There are some things that the government should do that they don't in america. That said, I do think that it's important for at least some limits to be placed on government so it doesn't get out of control. A government that dictates everything is just as bad as one that does nothing. ou can't smoke in your own home? That's enough to make me downright violent.
in our schools, they have meat, veggie, salad, and some kind of fruit for lunch. I saw the menus every month and the weren't bad. I don't know about these places where they serve fried chicken and burgers all the time in the cafeterias. In my area this does not happen except in the deal a meal rotation which is like once a month. additionally they have tried to incorporate foods from some of the ethnic communities served by the schools.
iironically, when my son was in private school, this is what they got. Monday the scottish inn, otherwise known as macdonalds. Tuesday and thursday popeyes, wednesday taco bell and friday the golden arches again. My dear boy ate one day a week of his choice, and the rest of the time did with what mom packed. oh well, life is like that.
Guess what? When I was on the board of ed that ran the institution, we got a deal with an italian place to cater three days a week. One day it was pizza, one day spaghetti, and one day lasagna. all came with a salad and bread. The other two days were popeyes. oh well rome wasn't burnt in a day i guess.
to the person who said parents are responsible for teaching their kids, I completely agree. however, there are cases (such as mine) where my parents didn't teach me things. so, I had to learn them elsewhere, and boy am I glad others were willing to help. of course my parents were at fault here, but what I'm trying to say is people should be willing and ready to step in where necessary when need be, cause you never know what said child's background might be.
I understand how that goes. I had to raise myself much of the time and I have learned alot.
Now let me try to get this train back on the tracks! The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer (more poor?) So, the rich will have less rights taken away because the scales tip in thier direction.
I agree that if you are being banned from eating what you want to eat, and you are not allowed to go elsewhere for food, that is an erosion of your civil liberties. It is happening to some children and it happens in the UK. If they outlawed vegetarian or vegan food in schools instead, there would be an outcry. However, the reason I didn’t mention it before is that I wanted this discussion to be about personal experiences, not civil liberties in general. When I was at school, those restrictions were not in place.
OK Sure (post 47) – I am as free to travel as I have always been. Even if they introduce searches on trains, it may be a bit inconvenient, but I will still be as free to travel as I was before, and it won’t have any impact on what I can and cannot do. Regarding your point about the example I gave about abusing others, some people would say their civil liberties were being eroded because they aren’t as free to call black people black bastards and niggers as they once were. However, it wouldn’t make the measures they considered an erosion of their civil liberties wrong.
One more thing, People who think that schools and parents should take measures to ensure children are healthier are hypocrites if they complain about erosions of civil liberties.
Senior, WTF? In reference to my comment: “Regarding your point about the example I gave about abusing
others, some people would say their civil liberties were being eroded because they aren’t as free to call black people black bastards and niggers as they
once were. However, it wouldn’t make the measures they considered an erosion of their civil liberties wrong.”
Wow dude, chill out! Again, this is not an erosion of a civil liberty; it is an example of a shift in the balance of power. It is not a civil liberty, or right to be abusive. A person can be as racist as they want in their own home and in private. We still do have supremacist groups in the US, and they can use as many slurs as they wish.
You also said: “One more thing, People who think that schools and parents should take measures to ensure children are healthier are hypocrites if they complain about erosions
Of civil liberties.”
I’m curious whose civil liberties are being taken away here; the corporations who want to feed your children unnecessarily unhealthy food?
Silver lightning, you are right, my statement was a gross overgeneralization; however, I thought that was obvious. I am not overweight either, but that wasn’t the point of my post.
I do think that it's an erosion of civil liberties when you can't speak your mind. tht doesn't mean that people should go around harming others because of their race, but when they can't make jokes or even be honest, this is a serious problem. I'm also against the part of the ADA that says that potential employers can't ask questions related to a person's disability and the job or be honest and tell them that because of said disability, they weren't hired. so you have interviewers who might have hired a blind person, but because they were afraid to ask a question about modifications or how the person can do the job, he/she chose someone sighted and "safer" instead. I'd rather someone be honest and straight forward instead of having to sugar coat things.
That's right, and if an employer can't tell you that you weren't hired because of your disability, that's just a measure to cover their own asses, not one that will protect the disabled person. I'd much rather know the truth of why I wasn't hired than have an employer pissing themselves out of fear they'll offend, and even more so if they thought I would sue them because the truth came out. I've always been all about honesty, no matter how much it hurts in the short term, I'd rather know someone had a prejudice or ignorance because they never experienced working with a blind person before, than always wondering if perhaps my own skills were lacking or if I did something wrong in the interview.
Senior, I want to know how it's hypocritical for people who say parents or schools should teach kids about healthy eating. I realize that it has to come from somewhere, and like I said, if neither environment is one the child learns this in, that's those peoples' own fault. But how does that make anyone hypocritical? It might make the people who failed to teach that necessary balance hypocritical, but I don't see your logic on that point.
screaming turtle
because hippocrite is one of the most wrongly used and least understood words in the english language. It is one of those verbally charged adjectives that can be thrown at someone with whom we do not agree. It illicits a response even if the person using it doesn't fully comprehend its meaning.
Ah, true. That's a good point.
OK Sure you may not consider not being able to abuse people because they're disabled or because of their race an erosion of civil liberties, but people who like being abusive probably do.
Health freaks who think children should be healthier aren't going to complain about civil liberties being eroded if schools stop serving children unhealthy food, but somebody who loves burgers and chips may see such measures as an erosion of civil liberties.
Civil liberties are a bit like media bias. People will moan about civil liberties being eroded if they disagree with the government's view, but they won't complain if they agree with the government. People complain about media bias when the media is biassed against the people they agree with, but ignore it when the media is biased in favour of people they agree with.
senior
hot news flash what you are describing is normal human behavior. we are not german shepherds or bumble bees. we are programed with brains that can make choices. the down, or up side, depending on our point of view,is that we have the right and privelege to express our dissatisfaction with the status quo. If we all were happy with everything, as it seems you are advocating, we'd all still be living in caves, wearing untanned animal pelts, and eating raw meet. yluck. i'm glad for the moaners and maunderers. although sometimes annoying the eventually can make change happen.
This is one of the countries where we are actually free to complain, so we're going to take advantage of it. There are still places where you can be sent to jail just for complaining, or disagreeing with the government. No decision will ever please everybody, so what's more important? The right of an individual, or the right of society?
The last two posts do in my view, confirm that we haven't lost our civil liberties.
Wow seenior you haven't paid much attention. We haven't lost our freedom of speech completely. (yet) However, we are slowly having rights removed.
margorp goes to show there all kinds of blindness ont his board.
You said it.