Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 04:10 PM) As long as no one tries to take his peanut butter snacks away from him. Then he clearly can complain and get what he wants. Because he's entitled to be able to eat those in school by god-given rights! I'm 98% sure that's a constitutionally protected right.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:51 PM) 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?? I would actually. Because i'm going to teach my son that he's not the center of the world and just because he wants something doesn't mean he (1) is owed anything and (2) can just complain and get what he wants.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) This is nearly as terrible as your "schools=children" analogy, but not quite. You're still not getting that analogy. And I can totally see the ACLU at some point making that exact argument. They're going to teach that in schools in the next 10 years, guaranteed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:23 PM) 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 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) "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. What is more reasonable? Causing a whole bunch of families, hundreds perhaps, to change or a handful? Seriously, wtf is the big deal here?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) 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. 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)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) Ostracizing and othering a child is a pretty big inconvenience. Asking parents to come up with alternatives to PB&J is not. 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!?" I agree with you eating in isolation would be cruel, but there's no reason at all why teachers couldn't corner him/her off with his friends and just make sure that whatever everyone else is eating is ok and/or not getting near him/her.

Sorry, page 1 was the first mention: QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 10:30 AM) I just took my daughter to a father/daughter dance last year. She had a great time. I didn't really pay attention but I'm sure if any of the girls came with someone other than their father they weren't denied entrance. This thinking by parents of "If my kid can't have it then why should anyone's kid" is getting ridiculous. They act like it's some horrible thing for their kid to learn that they may be different than everyone else and not everyone gets treated exactly the same. This is just as bad as schools banning peanut butter from lunchrooms because one kid is allergic to it rather than separating out the single kid. I hate to see when these kids grow up and realize that the rest of the world doesn't always conform to them and they have to deal with it. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 11:02 AM) I think his point was that instead of giving kids with nut allergies something different than peanut butter, schools have decided to just not give peanut butter to anyone so that the kids with the allergy don't feel left out or different. QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 11:33 AM) ^^^ That's exactly what I meant. Actually, at my daughter's school that's exactly what they do. She told me that at least one kid has to sit in a completely separate lunchroom. Surprisingly, the kid's parents haven't complained to the school that they need to completely ban peanut butter and all other products that may contains nuts. Instead they let their kid know that he's a little different than all the other kids so he has to do things a different way and it's OK. YOU were the first to bring up “yeah but some kids have severe reactions.” QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 03:24 PM) That's not why they institute peanut butter bans. Even the residue can cause severe reactions for some people. Have you ever been on a flight when they're prepping it for someone with peanut allergies? The wipe down several rows around the seat that person is going to be sitting in because even a tiny amount can be deadly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 02:14 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 02:01 PM) 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? 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:51 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 08:46 AM) Lol, that's great. I still can't believe the "artist" wants her money.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:38 PM) Actually that you view this as "punishment" for the sake of a small minority is pretty damn interesting. Lots to unpack there. I enjoyed PB&J's as a grade schooler immensely. I'd consider that a "punishment" in that you're taking that away from kids, and parents really, since that's a cheap lunch.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:27 PM) 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?" The problem being that you're overreacting in both situations. You're punishing the majority for the sake of a small minority and rare chance of something happening.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:19 PM) That would be pretty dumb. So.... Removing peanut butter from a school for the sake of the few kids that have peanut allergies - acceptable and responsible. Removing peanut butter from all schools for the sake of the few schools that have kids with peanut allergies - not acceptable and "dumb." I think I understand.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:09 PM) 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. Just to be safe, they should.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:54 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:46 PM) Your schools don't have access to your medical records? Mine always did. If a person has a severe enough allergy whereby contact with a particular product would be life threatening, and its been diagnosed, I'd expect a school to know that, and if its a real issue you deal with it. 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:48 PM) Great, so the standard we get to use now to justify spending is whether or not it does something for the benefit of society? I'm game! Sign me up! Well I would certainly hope that's the initial hurdle at the Congressional committee meeting

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:49 PM) 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. You get a max of $2500/year for that credit. So someone can attend one class for about 4 weeks. Great system!

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:49 PM) How is having a kid benefiting society? I've heard many times in the arguments of this forum that poor people should just stop having kids. Can't really have a country without a next generation...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:39 PM) from here 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.