StrangeSox

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

Releasing his 2011 return isn't going to blunt anything. People want to see 2009 because that's where the potentially damaging information is.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) Y2HH said it all. How can anybody argue with this? People can argue with it by presenting the pages of arguments that follow that comment. Some highlights include children not knowing the component ingredients of every product (not just peanut butter is in question), accidentally and unknowingly ingesting peanut oil/residue or having a severe reaction simply from breathing in peanut dust.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) http://www.areawidenews.com/story/1893038.html Here's where it all started. One ("or more") student had a severe nut allergy. They banned all peanut/nut products from the school. It's been in place for six years, beyond the time the kid was at that school. So it's gone from a specific ban to protect a student (arguably acceptable, but not IMO) to a blanket ban just in case others have allergies. This discussion did not "start" there, and I will note that, hey, it was because they had a severe nut allergy! The article also seems to indicate that at least one current student still has a nut allergy: The article does not indicate that they've actively decided to keep a blanket ban in place regardless of student needs. If so, that would be unreasonable, but that is not what anyone in this thread was discussing until you brought it up. I'd like to discuss why you think a specific ban to protect a specific student is unacceptable, not some random case I've never heard of until you just linked it or nonsense schools=children analogies.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 02:10 PM) But that's the whole argument here! When this whole scenario got brought up, no one said anything about a kid with a severe allergy that was life threatening. It's just a kid (or few) that had a nut allergy so they decided it was best just to get rid of it altogether. The few cases I've heard of schools implementing these policies, it's because a student has severe nut allergies. That's what has been discussed for several pages now as well. Nut allergies can easily be life-threatening. In a case like that, it is best to just get rid of nuts altogether while you have students with that allergy problem. If you can point out a case of a school that banned nuts because a student had a mild nut allergy, please let me know. That would be an overreaction, but it still wouldn't be anything like the really dumb idea of banning all nuts in schools nationwide.

How was he gone before the game? Don't you have waiver rules?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) I've already explained it. The school is making a conscious choice that the risk of harm to those few kids is too great, so ban it from the school. Just extend that out to a macro level. It's the entire school system. Get rid of the problem altogether whether or not there are kids with allergies at that particular school. There MIGHT be, so just play it safe. It's pointing out that it's a ridiculous overreach when there are other available options that don't involve 99% of the kids. But extending it out "to a macro level" is dumb and unnecessary and is only setting up a strawman for you to knock down. If there are no kids with allergies at that particular school, there is no reason for that policy. Which is why it would be dumb to implement and why you're talking nonsense. That would be ridiculous overreach, which is why you're arguing against that instead of the cases where there actually are children with life-threatening allergies. What other options are there? Why is not having peanut butter for lunch such an absurd 'overreach' and a punishment?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:41 PM) Im kind of mad at myself because in my money league I was going to draft bennett late if I didnt get Gronk. I should have just drafted him too. Also annoyed I didnt immediately pick up brown, but thats life in fantasy. Same, after last week's horrible performance I had a chance to pick up Brown but wasn't following anything. Where do you guys watch for the latest up-and-comers to add?

If anything, you're making me think that the most valuable part of not allowing peanut butter in schools where a student has severe allergies is the lesson it teaches kids about actually considering the well-being of others. The "punishment" of not eating peanut butter for lunch is not remotely equivalent to the very real risk of a severe allergic reaction. You still need to explain why you think your schools=kids-with-allergies scenario makes any sense.

Actually that you view this as "punishment" for the sake of a small minority is pretty damn interesting. Lots to unpack there.

"punishing" I'm still unclear as to why you think those two things are in any way equivalent.

I'm honestly baffled if you don't think those are fair, logical positions to take. edit: I mean, you do realize that schools are not like people and don't have allergies and can't come into contact with allergies spread by other schools? edit2: what do you even mean by "for the sake of the few schools?" What is beneficial for the schools in that case? How is that equivalent to "for the sake of the few kids who can quite literally die from contact?"

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departme...id.html#dlrenew Everyone must take a written exam every eight years except those having no traffic convictions. If you have an accident recorded on your driving record, you may be required to take the written and/or road exams.

That would be pretty dumb.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:07 PM) Yes, "5x more common" to the tune of 0.4-0.6% of people as an entire race. So we're talking about a very small number of schools ever even having to consider such policies. No one is saying ban all peanut products in all schools.

I switched to dairy mid-paragraph. Do you have anything showing that the accidental ingestion risk of sufficient quantity would be similar to peanut products?

I have answered the question but consider that I'm not researching for a public policy PhD and therefore can't provide some clear, distinguishable bright line of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" if one could even be found. If a student has a severe shellfish allergy and the likelihood of accidental second-hand ingestion is sufficient, sure, at that school, ask parents not to send shellfish in their kids' lunches. The same for other allergens. The problem with peanut butter is that the oils leave a thin residue and can easily be ingested without notice by a child who touches something with the residue on it, and that even such a small amount can be deadly. Can the same be said for dairy or other foods? I do not know, but I would suspect not.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:56 PM) The problem with this, of course, is that the "giving up front" would need to be given to everyone, regardless of whether they go buy a house, have a kid or get some kind of post-high school education. Giving the credit ensures that you actually do those things first. But the end result is the same. It's social spending no different from other types of spending. And it's not really practical to structure WIC that way because, you know, the people on WIC don't have money to pay up front and wait for refunds. And it's not necessarily problematic, see Pell Grants vs. student loan interest deductions. edit: however, I do favor a basic income over a myriad of tax credits.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:54 PM) So stick every student in a room by themselves, give them a monitor to watch the teacher on and the school has done the proper thing to avoid any and all potential issues. Done. Alternatively, ask parents not to send their kids to school with peanut butter. The horror.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:51 PM) You get a max of $2500/year for that credit. So someone can attend one class for about 4 weeks. Great system! That was one specific example, but the net effect is the same thing. Giving you a big Pell Grant upfront is, budget-wise, no different than forgiving the exact same amount of dollars in taxes on the back end.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:46 PM) Tax credits as a "social program" is bulls***. You're actively doing something for the benefit of society (owning a home, having a kid, etc) to get those credits. Budget-wise, it is the same thing. Refund you $x for your student loan interest or give you $x to pay for school, same difference. Instead of getting your mortgage tax check from the government in routine installments, you get your tax refund check in April. You can argue that some programs are worthwhile or beneficial while others are not, but they are functionally the same. That article lays the argument out.

Fascism, that's what this is. You know who instituted the first school peanut-ban? The Nazis, that's who.