StrangeSox

I almost picked up Hankerson this morning to replace Garcon. Still considering it.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 22, 2012 -> 03:00 PM) Serious question. if the media can find Romney's grade school grades, why can nobody find out Obama's college grades or even the classes he took? Or how he managed to pay for said college? We always hear how smart he supposedly is yet never offered any proof. I wan to know what grades he supposedly earned and in what classes he took. I heard he is stupid and got F's. It's not My job to prove it, it is HIS job to prove me wrong ala Harry Reid. Oh, and how many President's or candidates have released more than a year or two of tax records, including Obama? Bet you can count those one one hand. You already know he is rich, what are you looking for? He also released his taxes for the last 10 years or something like that. Why is that not good enough for you. Anything to keep the focus away from jobs and economy. Most of them since the 1980. Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bush, (hillary) Clinton in the primaries, (Bill) Clinton, Bush Sr., Dukakis etc. He has not released 10 years of tax returns. He released a letter that summarized their taxes in the most flattering way possible. In a campaign that is at least partially about future taxation plans and what rates different income classes should pay, it's at least somewhat relevant. I'm not sure under what scenario Obama's college grades are ever relevant.

Obama isn't apologizing because this is all a false-flag operation run by the Obama campaign itself. The video, the riots, the attacks, all of it.

Some of the schools in Burbank were doing that into the 90's.

I passed a house on my way home with a "Slow down please, deaf child playing!" sign out front. WTF, jerks. Why should I and every other driver be inconvenienced by your selfish child? Just keep 'em inside instead of burdening everyone else. Might as well make the speed limit on every road 20 MPH, SAME EXACT THING, OVERREACTION.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 04:14 PM) It does in the context I was making the analogy - you're making unreasonable decision that effects the vast majority for the sake of a small minority, whether or not the actual threat of harm is considerable or not. You're creating a blanket ban as opposed to an individualized response to deal with the problem. It's the same idea. AN OVERREACTION. It's not the same because there's an actual threat of harm in specific schools with individual responses on a school-by-school basis as-needed. A blanket ban with no consideration of actual harm is not the same thing as individual policies based directly on consideration of actual harm. A DUMB ANALOGY.

Your kid can't eat peanut butter,

^^ beat me to it

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 04:05 PM) You're still not getting that analogy. Yeah, I am, it just makes no sense at all. Because schools aren't children, these bans aren't put in place as "punishment" for anyone, and they are put in place to protect against actual medical situations versus because other schools have them. It doesn't even come close to being coherent. They'll stop teaching anatomy based on your misunderstanding of sociological discussions of gender and sex? I am skeptical.

Disclosure: I may have a small bias as I find nothing on the planet more disgusting than a kid with food smeared on their face (not a baby but a school-aged child) and the worst is with peanut butter. Gross.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:57 PM) I wonder if any of these kids get picked on by the other kids because they were the ones that caused them to not be able to bring a PB&J sandwich to lunch anymore. It's a hypothetical situation but I can totally see it happening. That did cross my mind, which is why I wouldn't necessarily oppose the segregation solution.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:53 PM) If a child has an affliction that only affects 1% of the population it's OK to tell him he's different that most of his classmates because he actually is. He'll learn it eventually sooner or later. Like I said, kids are pretty damn resilient and tend to figure out things on there own pretty well. It's when the adults get involved that things get all messed up. Sure, the child is literally different from the norm. That sort of stuff can stick, though, and make you a target for years. Children can be absolutely terrible to each other for the dumbest reasons. smash gender norms

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) It's not JUST peanut butter, it's anything containing nuts. No Paydays, no Snickers, no Nutter-Butter bars. I mean come on, you're killing the best snacks of my childhood here. Boo-f***ing-hoo, welcome to life on earth! Will you be just as cool with your proposed "Deal with it" solution if your child is sent to a separate room by themselves for lunch every day for years? Or is this all some misplaced nostalgia for lunchroom snacks??

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:49 PM) Should health teachers be teaching male/female anatomy? After all, someone with female body organs isn't necessarily a female and some men with male body organs aren't male. They might be ostracized if they're being taught something like that. This is nearly as terrible as your "schools=children" analogy, but not quite.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:45 PM) What is more reasonable? Causing a whole bunch of families, hundreds perhaps, to change or a handful? Seriously, wtf is the big deal here? I don't know why peanut butter is so precious to some people. I don't know why it's such a big deal that they couldn't possibly accommodate it.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:45 PM) Why exactly? I would be concerned about the aforementioned ostracization and othering. "This child is different, he must go eat by himself" can be a pretty powerful message to send about a particular child.

I don't necessarily have a problem with an individual administrator making that choice. I would not be happy with that solution if it were my child, but I would work with the school to come up with the best solution.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) Go reread what I wrote. I'm the one that linked the story. This started off as a general allergy story, you threw in the severe component, it was argued and discussed, and then i just posted a link. Edit: by "that's where this started" i mean from the article it indicates a national debate that started because of it (independent from this thread) I "threw in" the severe component because that's where we see these policies actually implemented. That you keep pointing out that no one was talking about severe allergies before I brought it up only highlights that a critical component was missing from the discussion. If you can find an example of this ban being instituted when there wasn't a specific need, i.e. an actual student at the school with a severe allergy, please, post it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:27 PM) Welcome to f***ing life man! Do you think that kid won't have to deal with that for the rest of his life? Is he going to live his life with a note that says "please ban all products from entering the premises prior to my arrival. Thanks!?" "Welcome to f***ing life man!" cuts both ways. You can't endanger the life of another student by bringing peanut butter, boo-f***ing-hoo. Go eat a salad. Yes, they'll face that danger for the rest of their life, but an adult or even a teenager is much more capable of taking the necessary precautions themselves than a young child is. Maybe you don't know the specific situation in each and every school and how they organize lunches and snacks. Perhaps it would be best to leave it up to the individual school administrators' discretion to implement the best policies in his or her school on a case-by-case basis. In fact, some schools do implement the policy you recommend, but that may not be practical everywhere.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:24 PM) Translation: The school system knuckled under to the pressure. You had better too if you know what is good for you. Otherwise the local ACLU branch might file a gender-discrimination lawsuit against you?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:22 PM) Sorry, page 1 was the first mention: Page 1 did not mention that story, nor did it give any details or explanations for why nuts were banned in those schools. When you linked a story and told me "this is where it started," that story was also over severe nut allergies. Right, because that's why they institute these bans in every case I've ever heard of (admittedly only a few). Because to do otherwise would likely be an overreach. I brought it up to point out the reality of why those policies are put in place because it didn't seem like you were aware, or it was being ignored.

Back on the long-forgotten original topic of this thread, the Rhode Island (it was there, not NY) ACLU has issued this statement: http://www.riaclu.org/20120918.htm

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:11 PM) And yes it did start there. Go back and read page 2. It took several pages for the "severe" component to enter the argument, which was all hypothetical mind you until I just posted that story. It did? Can you send me a link, because I can't find anything about that story on Page 2. I think people started discussing in good-faith and assumed that administrators were actually implementing these policies to address real, legitimate concerns as they have in the past, not assuming that it was over mild, non-threatening allergies.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) Because I think it's ludicrous to make 100 kids change for the sake of 1. If this kid has that much of a problem, remove him from the lunch room. That's a pretty big inconvenience when, again, there are easier alternatives. Ostracizing and othering a child is a pretty big inconvenience. Asking parents to come up with alternatives to PB&J is not.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) "Apple made the strategic decision not to include such superfluous information. A brilliant, innovative move, in my opinion" -- apple groupies