When the other side is advocating for children to starve, then yeah, fuck them. There is no point in being charitable to people incapable of the most basic decency.
The OP wouldn't have starved. There appears to have been food in the house the OP could have taken, but the OP didn't because he wanted his father to, in his words, "buy lunch food." You'll note that he says his family could afford food, but that he dad wouldn't pay for school lunch specifically because he thought the government should pay for it.
The previous poster didn't want to bring the food that was in his home because it wasn't "lunch food," so he justifies how he stole from his father, his classmates, and local businesses. And now he's going to judge other people's humanity by whether or not they agree with his stance that he was entitled to the kind of lunch he wanted, and call people subhuman if they disagree.
I'm someone who's in favor of the government providing free lunches, but this discussion shows why caution is needed. To many people will ignore the actually events that happened and start manufacturing catastrophes, then say that because of their fabricated scenario anyone who isn't in favor of what they want is a horrible human being, or that they were justified for harming others.
Why would he resort to scrounging around for food, looking through lost and found, and eventually stealing from the grocery store if there was food available at home for him. Because there was all this amazing food at home that wasn't "lunch food" is your conclusion? Every conclusion that follows is only logical if you go with a completely nonsensical assumption. If OPs Dad was willing to let his kid starve daily I wonder what his punishment would have been for eating his Dad's food.
> Every conclusion that follows is only logical if you go with a completely nonsensical assumption.
He specifically said that his father had enough money, and the issue was specifically paying for school lunches. Unless they literally woke up in the morning and went out for every breakfast before school every single day, and came home and ate a restaurant every single night, and went out to dinner three times a day on the weekends for every meal, and his dad literally didn't even keep a scrap of food in the house for himself and the fridge was completely empty, then there was food in the house.
It should be obvious which of those assumptions is "completely nonsensical."
> If OPs Dad was willing to let his kid starve daily I wonder what his punishment would have been for eating his Dad's food.
He specifically says he stole his dad's cigarettes many times and resold them.
Are you trying to claim that he would have gotten in more trouble for eating food from the fridge than for stealing his dad's cigarettes and reselling them? You're correct that there are many nonsensical assumptions here, but you seem to have missed which ones those are.
