Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by T A A on December 14, 2011 at 2:58am

School cafeterias should have a national set of priorities. The first priority should be no sodas, no fried fast foods, and no foods with a glycemic index above 90. The second priority should be to cater to common allergies such as nuts and seafood, and lactose intolerance, which is very prevalent in all non Caucasian societies. Third priority should be according to food preferences, in order of their relevance in the school population. Vegetarians are usually a fairly substantial percentage of a school's population and within this third priority, vegetarian options should not only mean skipping the flesh, but also offering decent protein alternatives.

It seems that your school went straight to the least of priorities. So the situation indeed does seem odd.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Kelly on December 14, 2011 at 3:53pm

I disagree.  True perceived necessity should be top priority.  Otherwise you get a system of exclusion and exclusion by nature creates inequality. So instead, I strongly advocate perceived necessity, then health, and then preference. 

Everyone wants to be able to enjoy the same basic privileges, and not providing a means for everyone to have the capacity to eat cafeteria food in the university is a form of inequality.  The issue is like I said in the very first post I made, is this a reasonable concession given the resources that it requires?   If it is really easy to do, then it just isn't a big deal.  If it uses a disproportionate number of resources compared to the population served, then it is inappropriate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on December 15, 2011 at 4:29am

Which is why I stated the first priority is for a proper healthy diet, that is the only universal necessity. All else comes after. As for 'perceived' necessity, I imagine all people consider their own needs a necessity. There's no way any school system can cater/afford to ALL 'perceived' necessities. At some point you gotta do what you can with the budget at hand.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Kelly on December 15, 2011 at 5:12am

No point in bringing "All needs" to the conversation because it was precluded as a possibility in my previous post.  It was never considered as an option.

That said, I still disagree. It is still a top priority, but first priorities are to eliminate the possibility for widespread discontent, and to show a welcoming atmosphere for potential students of multiple demographics.

I think healthy food is very essential though, and I would put it immediately following and of high priority.  However it isn't really necessary.  You could get away with it and still have students pull fairly similar grades.  Lots of successful students eat terribly during their college years.  This is so much the case that jokes are made about college student meal concepts.  But I am seriously sick of widespread junk food, so I see your position here.

Though I am also interested in your reply to the other thread about morality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on December 15, 2011 at 5:49am

:)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Samuel Purkiss on December 14, 2011 at 7:54pm

I'm gonna have to agree with John on this one. I think you have your priorities out of whack. Besides, what would taking soda and fried food out of a caf actually do? I think a better solution would be to raise awareness about how to live a healthy lifestyle... But I'm getting off topic.

And they do have all the health concerns taken care of, good choices for vegans and people with allergies, etc... So I suppose adding religious food sort of makes sense in that respect but I strongly disagree with the halal method of slaughtering and so on

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on December 15, 2011 at 4:32am

Bad food in... bad school results out. This has been amply demonstrated.

The first purpose of schools is to educate. Feeding kids bad food hampers education, resulting in contradiction of its very purpose.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nick Sykora on December 14, 2011 at 10:48am

Nah try it they make some good stuff. I think it's more of a style of food.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Helen Pluckrose on December 14, 2011 at 1:12pm

I believe you should be offended. Food is Halal when it has been killed by allowing the animal to bleed slowly to death. In the UK killing animals in this inhumane way is illegal unless you are Jewish or Muslim. It is a form of religious privilege. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Kelly on December 14, 2011 at 3:42pm

 I had a die-hard vegetarian friend as a roomate, and he showed me footage of calf slaughter, and I watched as calves were yanked against their will as they struggled in resistance to get away from the bloody room and then got that bolt shoved through their head.  It puts them out quicker, but either way is not much better in comparison. 

As for religious privilege, it is there because it would cause a riot if they tried to ban it.  The muslim and jewish population are under the delusion it is a necessity.  This changes the dynamics because while their beliefs are not real, the discontent is very real.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott A. Hunt on December 14, 2011 at 4:02pm

footage of calf slaughter, and I watched as calves were yanked against their will as they struggled in resistance to get away from the bloody room and then got that bolt shoved through their head.

That sounds like an old practice.  Many slaughter houses have adopted the methods prescribed by Dr. Temple Grandin which are far more humane.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Kelly on December 14, 2011 at 4:57pm

Hey, thanks for the heads up, I'll look that up and learn more about it.  Do you have any good links? 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page