• mrginger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    158
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ban abortions, then starve the children. If wasn’t already apparent that the Republican Party is evil, this should make things much clearer.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        1 year ago

        Starving children don’t learn. An educated populace is good for the economy. Feeding children benefits you directly in the long-term.

        But people like you never think about things past the short-term.

      • Godric@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, you ghoul, you do have a moral responsibility to help feed starving children in your community. Morality is wild, eh?

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s arguably the single most fundamental job of the government, yes.

        The fucking romans had this figured out god damn.

      • SkyeStarfall
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Food should be a basic right. So, yes. I would argue that it should be the government’s job.

        In fact, I would argue that all the basic survival needs should just be provided to us free of charge. Leave money and income and working as such for earning yourself luxuries.

        Anything less and you’re just forcing people to work under the threat of starvation and homelessness. And is that right?

        …also were talking about literal children here. It’s not like they have a choice exactly.

        • Colonel Panic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would LOVE if we could get to that system.

          Everything paid for, you can sit at home all day if you want, but that will be with no luxuries.

          You want Netflix and games and hobbies and whatever? Get a job to earn luxury income.

          And it wouldn’t even be hard to do. We would simply have to not have fucking BILLIONAIRES. That’s about it.

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree. We need a federal lawsuit to enforce this. The federal government has been completely ignoring homelessness and the complete lack of a social safety net throughout the US and it’s just killing the country.

        • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          100% wrong. Anything that can run out can never be a “right”. Freedom of speech can be, freedom from unjust search and seizure can be.

          What happens when the money, or the food, or the houses run out?

          I’m in the UK. It doesn’t matter that we have an NHS (which I am a huge fan of btw), I have zero hope of being able to use it in anything like a timely manner because it’s falling to bits. Not even healthcare can be a “right”

          • Bloodyhog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            NHS is a government service you explicitly pay for (unless you are exempt from NI). It is not a right, it is something you purchase. You can be exempt from paying due to your personal circumstances, but if all is well - you pay. The fact that our beloved government does not deliver what you pay for is another topic, but it certainly should.

              • Bloodyhog@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Thin ice. I believe there must be a balance between free capitalism and a moderately strong government with a safety net. People do fail in life, that should not necessarily lead to death. Children in particular are hungry not because they failed, but because their parents did. And there is a role for the government to support the children in need. This was a role of a tribe in the early days, or community slightly later; then governments took over. This safety net has to exist for other categories of people in need, the extent of this support is to be debated in a healthy society. Personally I do see a merit even in the universal income. Not because this is everyone’s birthright, but because it may soon become a necessity.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        To feed children? Step back, take a look in the mirror, and ask yourself where you went wrong that you’re talking about taking away food from children’s mouths. You are a monster.

        If you also think abortion should be illegal in addition to not feeding them, you aren’t just a monster, you’re an indescribably awful evil.

          • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            You do realize taxes are not the same amount taken from everyone? And if you’re poor enough you don’t pay anything on taxes. If you’re a step above that, you get back everything you paid on taxes at the end of the year. I’m not really sure why you think tax funded lunches would garnish wages from the poor.

          • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it’s not a straw man at all. It’s a logical thing to bring up when you are stating that children don’t deserve to be fed by taxpayer money. The state forces chosen to exist and then makes it illegal for taxes to pay for their food thereby proving that they don’t give a damn about the kids at all.

        • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To put ovide an environment of personal safety and property rights so people can be independently prosperus. I have no issue with a welfare state, but that is not the primary function of government.

          What happens when you run out of other peoples money?

      • Phegan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        In my opinion, yes. But even if you disagree with that.

        This is the federal government attempting to undo states choosing to feed children. So this is even worse, this is them actively taking away the ability for states to choose to feed children.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        It literally is, by the doctrine on parens patriae. It is the duty of the state to act in the best interests of its citizens who unable to pursue those interests themselves, whether it’s because they are incapacitated, or minors. This goes back centuries, to the time of monarchy. Our ancestors resolved the question of “who should care for the orphans?” with the simple answer, “it is the king’s duty.”

        It is the government’s job, in its role as sovereign, to feed kids who don’t get enough to eat. And if it’s not, we should just burn it all to the fucking ground, because why else even have a society?

            • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wow. The first person on this thread to not just insult me.

              I have no issue with free school meals, I just don’t want them to be universal, feeding rich kids is crazy.

              • Astro@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s easier for everyone to have free meals than a select few, I feel. It would also get rid of an easy target on lower income kids being bullied for having the “free lunch”.

                • AA5B@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Probably also much cheaper per. Trying to set up a meals program for the fee underprivileged - probably should just order Panera delivered. But if you go through the overhead of setting up a program, the cost of more meals is probably marginal.

                  Also, how about when kids forget. Why does it always seem to be the teacher who has to buy emergency food?

                  To me, it’s like prison: kids always compare school to prison, so let’s go with that. The government is forcing them to be there past meal times, and not letting them out. The school is claiming parental authority to watch out for their needs. One of them is food, dammit

                • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, the government is wasteful and bureaucratic I agree. Is my solution anyone can have the free meals if they apply for it they’re simple to apply for through the school.

                  That would immediately eliminate a huge number of unnecessary lunches to purchase. I would happily have been buying my kids their school lunches through their first three years of school, but that was not a choice offered to me.

                  When I went to school half the kids are on preschool dinners literally nobody cared.

                  Incidentally my family were dirt poor when I was a little but we weren’t poor enough to qualify for free school lunches but we may do with sandwiches. Presuming the poor are incapable and requiring of constant charity is the soft bigotry of low expectation

                  • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Presuming the poor are a monolith is problematic. There’s also a huge difference between being broke and being broke in a poverty-defined culture. There are folks who are broke and still have a big view of the world, and folks who are broke and have a very narrow view of a very small world. That said, I don’t understand the hostility to a hand out.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a major failure of a society when people don’t have access to the basics. Basic food, water, shelter, and basic healthcare. America fails quite badly on this.

        Wendy’s is luxury food however. If you want it, go earn money and buy it yourself.

      • Elivey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re arguing against feeding fucking children

        Did you ever stop to think, “are we the baddies?”

        Unbelievable.

          • Colonel Panic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m pretty sure we’re saying the opposite… We want to tax THE RICH. You know, the guys with billions and paying almost no taxes because of loopholes only they can use.

            How about they pay their FUCKING FAIR SHARE so the rest of us aren’t left picking up the damn tab every time.

            Quit using bad faith strawman arguments you absolute monster.

      • Colonel Panic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You guys will make up ANY ridiculous straw man argument to screw yourself and everyone over won’t you? You just are desperate to make everyone except the 1% stay suffering.

        • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “you guys”?

          I swear everyone in this thread is having a hallucination that I’m somebody I’m not. I presume you think I’m sort of some of red that wearing uber conservative?

          Do people’s actual opinions matter at all.

          Perhaps I should think you’re a communist or something and then accuse you of it?

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It basically is in a fairly straightforward way.

        In the Declaration of the Independence it states thusly:

        “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

        Since you cannot have Life without food, it would logically follow that it is the government’s job to (secure these rights) food for people. If it does not, then the Declaration of Independence states that we can overthrow the government.

      • thebrownhaze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wow, the smooth brain takines of this sub would down vote me out of existence and “banish” me if they had the chance. Great advert for the society you would run.

        None of you have any inquiry as to why I would say that.