A school in Sweden is going completely vegetarian in an effort to positively impact the climate, according to reports.

The Gitarren Preschool in Umeå is testing the new policy during a trial period with a plan to implement it permanently, making it the first school in the municipality to pursue the radical approach.

All food served at the school will be totally meatless, and children will not have a choice to opt out of the program.

"This means that breakfast, lunch and snacks will be completely vegetarian," Fria Tider reports. "And anyone who wants meat will not even be able to apply for it. No exceptions are made - everyone must eat vegetarian."

Teachers claim parents and children are very excited and only positive feedback has been received by the school.

"There have only been positive reactions and many are grateful," teacher Markus Sandström told SVT. "We believe and hope that this can become permanent. So this is the idea, but it felt a bit drastic to go all out with it right away. We must evaluate properly first."

"We want to be clear that there is nothing political about this. This is something we do because we believe it has a positive climate impact."

A dietician will reportedly oversee the new menu's rollout to ensure children are receiving adequate nutrition.

Translated...

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vasterbotten/har-ar-forskolan-som-ska-bli-helt-kottfri

Why do Europeans and Liberals and European Liberals force people to do things?

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 28, 2019, 08:36:12 PM
Why do Europeans and Liberals and European Liberals force people to do things?

Usa maintains a system of penal labour that pushes a large amount of prisoners into forced involuntary labor besides having a high incarceration rate. This has been abolished in Europe.

The US 13th amendment allows slavery in the prison system, so this form of penal labor is also looked at as "legalised slavery".

Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on October 28, 2019, 11:41:19 PM
Usa maintains a system of penal labour that pushes a large amount of prisoners into forced labor besides having a high incarceration rate. This has been abolished in Europe.

If you make your bed, you have to sleep in it. Nobody forced them to commit those crimes. They have to be punished. And, the are only doing certain things. They are not war prisoners building a bridge like in the movie "Bridge Over The River Kwai". Other then that, most of them have more perks than most people have. Some people don't have three meals a day, gym privileges, or cable TV.

They forcing those kids to eat what they say they should eat. They are forcing people to do something. There is no comparison of the two.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 12:10:36 AM
Nobody forced them to commit those crimes. They have to be punished.

That doesn't mean you have to force them to do involuntary labor. It boils down to a form of legalised slavery. 

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 12:10:36 AM
They forcing those kids to eat what they say they should eat. They are forcing people to do something. There is no comparison of the two.

You can't go beyond the idea that parents by the vast majority will force their kids to eat what they decide. The parents pay, take it in mind, the parents also decide what school kiddo goes too. It's the parents choice and they have the legal guardianship.

If kids would be given the liberty to always choose their own food perhaps it would be hamburgers all day any day. That said, again, the kids don't pay for it out of their own pocket, they kinda have to take whatever their parents want to give them and thats perfectly normal human behaviour across the world.

For reference, i wouldn't send my kids to a school that only serves vegetarian. Otoh i think the parents of kids who prefer to be vegetarian think it's an interresting school. Afaik about 30% of the world poppulation is vegetarian, to them meat served up in schools could be an issue too.

I like the idea though, i think ill ask Belgian schoolkids how they look at it, would be cool if they themselves would be completly up for it.

Then don't have them commit the crime. But, you don't care since you Liberals care more about the criminal then the victims.

They used to break rocks in prison. Maybe, we should go back to that because they are not really getting punished as they should. You should leave feeling that you don't want to go back.

They don't serve hamburgers every day (at least when I went to school). They had a couple of options available. Besides, even if they had the burger at school, they would get a real meal at dinner. If you have special diet needs or desires, don't push it on the rest of us.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 12:46:12 AM
Then don't have them commit the crime.

Liberals? Arn't you self describing yourself as "libertarian"? I thought the priciple of a Libertarian was to have as much liberty as for example economicly possible. Then why would you support forced slave labor within a prison system with a notably high incarceration rate? Youre argument doesn't change my previous argument, it's not because you put them in prison that you need to force them to slave labor and neither is it strickly nessecary or impossible to give those prisoners more liberty since prison systems elsewhere work fine aswell withought the slave labor.

Quote
They don't serve hamburgers every day (at least when I went to school). They had a couple of options available. Besides, even if they had the burger at school, they would get a real meal at dinner. If you have special diet needs or desires, don't push it on the rest of us.

It's up to the parents trough their legal guardianship to decide to which school they send their kids, noone is forced to send their kids to a school serving veggie meals. And if the parents force the kids to eat vegetarian, well it's considered perfectly normal in pretty much any culture that parents would have the right to do that, withought that any moral objection must be made.

Even in America there is a fair variety in schools afaik, up to having catholic schools that force a fair amount of indoctrination on their pupils. Do you similarly object to the idea that pupils are forced to go to church in a catholic school?

I support punishing criminals. It has to be so that criminals will not want to commit another crime and return to prison. What do you not understand about that? That is why we say Liberals seem to care more about the criminal than the victim.

Stop changing the subject. We are not talking about prisons. We are not talking about religious schools. If Anything, public schools and universities do the brainwashing.

Let's stick with the subject. Why should we force people's kids to eat what you want them to eat?

We want an answer on that.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 01:18:14 AM
I support punishing criminals. It has to be so that criminals will not want to commit another crime and return to prison. What do you not understand about that?

Why do you not understand that this is completly besides my point. It's not because you have to punish criminals (which i accept) that you MUST force them to slave labor, simple as that.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 01:18:14 AM

Let's stick with the subject. Why should we force people's kids to eat what you want them to eat?
We want an answer on that.

The only ones who can force their kids to eat what they decide is the parents, evne in this case. Noone can force a kid to go to a veggie school specificly.
The same applies to religion then, the only ones who can force their kids to follow the rites of a certain religion are the parents even if schools exist that force religious rites onto their pupils.

As such, the question could be turned around: "why should we force people's kids to follow the rites of a certain religion". Granted imho neither cases amount to force, but it's consistent with the line of youre argumentation. It's eventually parents who decide which school the student goes to and therefore what school rules he has to adhere too, and they have every legal or even normative right to "force" their kids like that.

Again, don't commit the crime. Don't care what they have to do while inside. Since you Liberals care more about the criminal then the victim, we know you would like them to be pampered while inside.

Again, stop comparing apples and oranges. When you go to a Christian academy, it's kinda understood that there is religion involved. It is a choice that people voluntarily choose go if they so wish.

This is not even about diet. They say it is about the environment. It's not the schools job to be environmentalists except for basic recycling, They start with one school (who cares about the students who could go there if it were not for the vegan-fascists). It will spread. Liberalism always spread. It's cancer.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on October 29, 2019, 02:33:06 AM

Again, stop comparing apples and oranges. When you go to a Christian academy, it's kinda understood that there is religion involved. It is a choice that people voluntarily choose go if they so wish.

Same with veggie schools. It's a choice that people voluntarily choose if they wish so. The comparison is apt, the comparison is perfect.

Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on October 29, 2019, 04:29:03 AM
Same with veggie schools. It's a choice that people voluntarily choose if they wish so. The comparison is apt, the comparison is perfect.

Yet you fail to recognize the fallacy behind this entire venture. That somehow a handful of kids not eating meat will effect climate?
Do you not see the idiocy in this? Man is not changing the planet, a changing climate is a natural event caused by the sun and the earth itself.
One has to ask one self, what message is this sending to these kids? That somehow farting is evil, that cattle as a specie should be eliminated? Kids aren't stupid, they have an amazing ability for cognitive thought, but if lied to, they come to wrong conclusions leading to bad decisions for their own future.
This is indoctrination, pure and simple, this is evil!!!!

Quote from: Solar on October 29, 2019, 04:53:06 AM
Man is not changing the planet, a changing climate is a natural event caused by the sun and the earth itself.

That man has inpact on climate change is the broadly accepted and normative scientific position.

Methane is a greenhouse with afaik 26x the effect on concentration of particles in the atmosphere in comparison to carbondioxide while only lasting 10 years versus 60 years for carbondioxide. And afcourse, a higher concenration of greenhouse parts in the athmosphere increases reflection of sunlight on earth hence creating a greenhouse effect.

Climate also changes because of natural reasons. Earth could kill us aswell, but we certaintly can kill our own climate easily too by the science i read.

A more important thing really to understand in terms of cimate change is "likelyhood" versus origin. For example the USA sits on top of Yellowstone Caldera. If Yellowstone Caldera would erupt it would pretty much make North America uninhabitable. Yellowstone Caldera afaik hasn't eruped for 640.000 years, while nominally it should errupt every 600.000 years. In a sense it's overdue, but that afcourse won't make ayone leave the USA in panic soon afcourse. And the thing is, on a period of 600.000 years a margin of error of 1% for example can easily happen, but thats a margin of 6000 years which is very long. Granted perhaps we have to talk about a margin of error of 10%, in that case Yellowstone caldera would need to erupt somewhere i the next 20.000 years but that would translate into "a 0.5% chance that Yellowtone erupts this century".

Climate chance has similar things, for example the "giant polar fart bomb", there is a lot of methane stored under the polar caps that could release suddently, the chance for giant release is there because of the shrinking north pole and the most potent polar fart bomb possible is enough to fuck over humanity but the chance of this happening isn't nessecairly that high even if essentially human made. You can add it to other natural causes that can fuck over humanity like a big ass asteroid or even a fucking Pulsar. Oh an ice age is theoreticly possible aswell because of some random shit, nature can be a bitch.

Furthermore, it's hard to say what technoligy's might emerge to help us with climate change, it is possible that we make some breaktrough that makes the whole issue moot, so far though that hasn't materialised.

In terms of public health: increased pollution is considered the source of the rising asthma epidemics in the industrial world.

The school administration at my former high school began to push this concept in a news letter I received the other week. Not to say it would go completely vegetarian, but they did mention that they were moving towards a more vegetarian based diet for the students. I don't see what this accomplishes aside from forcing students into particular eating habits. I could see the backlash being pretty forceful. It started with Michelle Obama's crack down on lunches.

Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on October 29, 2019, 05:09:17 AM
That man has inpact on climate change is the broadly accepted and normative scientific position.

Methane is a greenhouse with afaik 26x the effect on concentration of particles in the atmosphere in comparison to carbondioxide while only lasting 10 years versus 60 years for carbondioxide. And afcourse, a higher concenration of greenhouse parts in the athmosphere increases reflection of sunlight on earth hence creating a greenhouse effect.

Climate also changes because of natural reasons. Earth could kill us aswell, but we certaintly can kill our own climate easily too by the science i read.

A more important thing really to understand in terms of cimate change is "likelyhood" versus origin. For example the USA sits on top of Yellowstone Caldera. If Yellowstone Caldera would erupt it would pretty much make North America uninhabitable. Yellowstone Caldera afaik hasn't eruped for 640.000 years, while nominally it should errupt every 600.000 years. In a sense it's overdue, but that afcourse won't make ayone leave the USA in panic soon afcourse. And the thing is, on a period of 600.000 years a margin of error of 1% for example can easily happen, but thats a margin of 6000 years which is very long. Granted perhaps we have to talk about a margin of error of 10%, in that case Yellowstone caldera would need to erupt somewhere i the next 20.000 years but that would translate into "a 0.5% chance that Yellowtone erupts this century".

Climate chance has similar things, for example the "giant polar fart bomb", there is a lot of methane stored under the polar caps that could release suddently, the chance for giant release is there because of the shrinking north pole and the most potent polar fart bomb possible is enough to fuck over humanity but the chance of this happening isn't nessecairly that high even if essentially human made. You can add it to other natural causes that can fuck over humanity like a big ass asteroid or even a fucking Pulsar. Oh an ice age is theoreticly possible aswell because of some random shit, nature can be a bitch.

Furthermore, it's hard to say what technoligy's might emerge to help us with climate change, it is possible that we make some breaktrough that makes the whole issue moot, so far though that hasn't materialised.

In terms of public health: increased pollution is considered the source of the rising asthma epidemics in the industrial world.

Not trying to be insulting, fact is, you, like so many other lib kids are gullible fools. This has been a known hoax for decades being pushed by Globalist Marxists.
Case in point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I68pQfeK6N4

But to address your BS about Co2 being a heat trapping gas? I know this will probably go right over your head, but you are more than welcome to disprove his math.

http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html