"Pork or Nothing" : How Politics intervenes children's lunch

[Imperializt Russia]

I was asked to provide a secular argument and my non-religious argument was "choice is a nice thing".

It's a little weak. You'd be better served going for the dietary argument that a varied list of meals, with dietary information provided, would allow children to theoretically choose one best suited to provide their needs for the day based on what breakfast they had, and what they are having for dinner.

"choice is nice."

"The government isn't supposed to be nice. We're not offering a luxury here."

I can't believe you have the gall to talk about weak when an hour ago it was:
"This is entirely to fuck with Muslims"
"The reason doesn't matter"

And now we're at:
"Why shouldn't there be more than one option?"
"Because they're asking for religious reasons (ie, the reason now does matter)"

You're not consistent and entirely missing the point of secularism.

[Valystria]

All day.
Every day.
Forever.

(No, they don't. It's just that now, on the days they eat pork, no alternative is offered.)

Oh ok. Just the way the OP article was phrased, it made it sound like they eat pork every day - no exceptions! "Pork or nothing bitches!"

That's an example of the misleading framing presented by the article.

[Olerand]

You do realize pork is not offered everyday, no? Meat is offered regularly. Some days that meat is pork. Other times it is chicken, beef etc. On the days that pork is offered, and these students refuse to eat pork; or on all days if one is a vegetarian; there is a vegetarian option. Problem, solved. They have no right to have a special meal on those days when pork is offered. Period. A vegetarian option should be available, and they can have that.

If that's actually the case. Fine. I have no problem with it.

But that's not what most of the people posting here have in mind.

Do people think pork is the only meat offered everyday? No. That's not the case.

The handful of notable French towns with FN mayors have, probably, taken this measure. Many others, not run by the FN, also have. The biggest city that has removed non-pork special options -and introduced a vegetarian option- is Toulouse, whose mayor is a Republican.

It certainly says a lot about the Guardian's quality of reporting by how they framed this is a far-right issue when clearly that's not the case. It's almost as if the Guardian wanted to push a certain narrative.

It is The Guardian, no?

[Ostroeuropa]

It's a little weak. You'd be better served going for the dietary argument that a varied list of meals, with dietary information provided, would allow children to theoretically choose one best suited to provide their needs for the day based on what breakfast they had, and what they are having for dinner.

"choice is nice."

"The government isn't supposed to be nice. We're not offering a luxury here."

I can't believe you have the gall to talk about weak when an hour ago it was:
"This is entirely to fuck with Muslims"
"The reason doesn't matter"

And now we're at:
"Why shouldn't there be more than one option?"
"Because they're asking for religious reasons (ie, the reason now does matter)"

You're not consistent and entirely missing the point of secularism.

Do you have any proof it's entirely to fuck with muslims?

[Jochistan]

I'm kind of shocked that they eat pork every day.

That can't be healthy.

All day.
Every day.
Forever.

(No, they don't. It's just that now, on the days they eat pork, no alternative is offered.)

Oh...That's it? Fine then.

If that's actually it. And the Days they don't eat pork aren't most of the week or something.

Now it just seems passive aggressive.

[Ostroeuropa]

All day.
Every day.
Forever.

(No, they don't. It's just that now, on the days they eat pork, no alternative is offered.)

Oh...That's it? Fine then.

This is why the guardian is so terrible, and why I'm baffled people take it or it's readers seriously.

You apparently were convinced that a first world country was going to devolve into cartoonish levels of nonsense and serve students pork, all day, every day, from now on.

Why?

Why would you think that?

[Olerand]

All day.
Every day.
Forever.

(No, they don't. It's just that now, on the days they eat pork, no alternative is offered.)

Oh...That's it? Fine then.

Why on Earth would there be one main meal everyday offering pork, to the detriment of all other meats? That's so silly.I understand that The Guardian article almost presents it as if the issue was such, but no, it's not.

[Valystria]

If that's actually the case. Fine. I have no problem with it.

But that's not what most of the people posting here have in mind.

Do people think pork is the only meat offered everyday? No. That's not the case.

It certainly says a lot about the Guardian's quality of reporting by how they framed this is a far-right issue when clearly that's not the case. It's almost as if the Guardian wanted to push a certain narrative.

It is The Guardian, no?

It seems kind of bizarre that after reading a Guardian article people think that in France it's normal to eat pork all day every day.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh...That's it? Fine then.

Why on Earth would there be one main meal everyday offering pork, to the detriment of all other meats? That's so silly.I understand that The Guardian article almost presents it as if the issue was such, but no, it's not.

The Guardian regularly presents the utterly deranged as though it's factually correct.

[Valystria]

Oh...That's it? Fine then.

This is why the guardian is so terrible, and why I'm baffled people take it or it's readers seriously.

It's the new Daily Mail.

[Jochistan]

Oh...That's it? Fine then.

Why on Earth would there be one main meal everyday offering pork, to the detriment of all other meats? That's so silly.I understand that The Guardian article almost presents it as if the issue was such, but no, it's not.

I doubt even most Muslims/Jews would get pissed then.

[Imperializt Russia]

I can't believe you have the gall to talk about weak when an hour ago it was:
"This is entirely to fuck with Muslims"
"The reason doesn't matter"

And now we're at:
"Why shouldn't there be more than one option?"
"Because they're asking for religious reasons (ie, the reason now does matter)"

You're not consistent and entirely missing the point of secularism.

Do you have any proof it's entirely to fuck with muslims?

Why didn't you ask that question an hour ago? Right now I'm complaining about your inconsistent line of arguing.

[Olerand]

Why on Earth would there be one main meal everyday offering pork, to the detriment of all other meats? That's so silly.I understand that The Guardian article almost presents it as if the issue was such, but no, it's not.

I doubt even most Muslims/Jews would get pissed then.

There are issues when no vegetarian option is presented, and therefore one should be presented. Some on the liberal left, not too many in France, but apparently enough -here or in Britain- to garner The Guardian's attention and support, and I'm sure quite a few Islamists, who will have an issue regardless. Best to ignore them.

[Ostroeuropa]

Do you have any proof it's entirely to fuck with muslims?

Why didn't you ask that question an hour ago? Right now I'm complaining about your inconsistent line of arguing.

The reason for the government enforcing secularism doesn't matter to me. I don't see how that's inconsistent.

[Imperializt Russia]

Why didn't you ask that question an hour ago? Right now I'm complaining about your inconsistent line of arguing.

The reason for the government enforcing secularism doesn't matter to me. I don't see how that's inconsistent.

Secularism exists to deal with problems that matter.

[Jochistan]

I still really object that defense of Muslims/Islam is an "SJW" thing.

[Imperializt Russia]

I still really object that defense of Muslims/Islam is an "SJW" thing.

Too bad, that's what we are now, apparently.

[Uelvan]

Oh my god, how hard is it to cook some chicken too? I mean fuck. It's not even expensive.

[Fartsniffage]

Why didn't you ask that question an hour ago? Right now I'm complaining about your inconsistent line of arguing.

The reason for the government enforcing secularism doesn't matter to me. I don't see how that's inconsistent.

Whoa.....the point of a secular government is not to enforce secularism. That you thing it it is fucking worrying...

[Valystria]

The reason for the government enforcing secularism doesn't matter to me. I don't see how that's inconsistent.

Whoa.....the point of a secular government is not to enforce secularism. That you thing it it is fucking worrying...

What?

What are you talking about?

[Ostroeuropa]

The reason for the government enforcing secularism doesn't matter to me. I don't see how that's inconsistent.

Whoa.....the point of a secular government is not to enforce secularism. That you thing it it is fucking worrying...

What?

[Olerand]

The reason for the government enforcing secularism doesn't matter to me. I don't see how that's inconsistent.

Secularism exists to deal with problems that matter.

Laïcité exists to remove religion from the public sphere. A laïque public school is the definition of the public sphere. All religious influences, beliefs, dietary restrictions, are an entirely private and personal matter and should be dealt with in the private sphere. No exceptions. (If French governments had balls they would also extend this issue to Alsace-Lorraine, technically still under the Napoleonic Concordat as Laïcité was instituted when they were German, and even better, remove subsidies for private schools; but French governments successively lack fortitude today)

[Jochistan]

I still really object that defense of Muslims/Islam is an "SJW" thing.

Too bad, that's what we are now, apparently.

Most Defense of Muslims actually comes from non-"SJW" types. I mean, liberals, still, but not "SJW's" or whatever.

Many of the Liberals (on the internet) that defend Islam and stuff, that I've known are Pro-Gamergate folks and other anti-"SJW" groups.

[Galloism]

Secularism exists to deal with problems that matter.

Laïcité exists to remove religion from the public sphere. A laïque public school is the definition of the public sphere. All religious influences, beliefs, dietary restrictions, are an entirely private and personal matter and should be dealt with in the private sphere. No exceptions. (If French governments had balls they would also extend this issue to Alsace-Lorraine, technically still under the Napoleonic Concordat as Laïcité was instituted when they were German, and even better, remove subsidies for private schools; but French governments successively lack fortitude today)

Oppression is the new freedom, it appears.

[Jochistan]

Oh my god, how hard is it to cook some chicken too? I mean fuck. It's not even expensive.

It's not every day apparently. only on a few days. False info is false.