Banning Father Daughter dances in school

[StrangeSox]

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?

[Y2HH]

In the event that you actually have a possibly lethal milk allergy in your school, you should take steps to prevent exposure to that product. A big question winds up being the level of exposure...if getting it on skin can be lethal, then you have to find a way to keep the kid away from that product.

 

Shellfish...well I don't know what school you went to that can afford that.

 

One thing worth noting though is that nut allergies are 5x more common than any of the other ones youve referred to, so in the large majority of cases that's going to be the one you have to worry about.

 

Yes, "5x more common" to the tune of 0.4-0.6% of people as an entire race.

[StrangeSox]

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.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[StrangeSox]

That would be pretty dumb.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[StrangeSox]

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?"

Edited September 21, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[StrangeSox]

"punishing"

 

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

[StrangeSox]

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

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[StrangeSox]

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.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

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?

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[StrangeSox]

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.

[greg775]

We all made it through school eating peanut butter...kids that were allergic to it...well, they just didn't eat it.

 

Y2HH said it all. How can anybody argue with this? Our society is in deep deep trouble. I will say this, though. You helicopter parents, the ones who think Johnny and Julie can do no wrong, who go to the teachers and complain when they get a B instead of an A, who demand no father-daughter dances because your little baby has no dad around ... you are gonna get yours when Johnny and Julie live with you until they are 30.

Cause the articies I'm reading is little Johnny and Julie don't like the mean ol workplace and THEY QUIT their jobs at alarming rates cause of mean ol bosses and co-workers. The current 20 somethings want nirvana in the workplace as well, in large part of some of the parents who raise their kids so protectively.

 

Have fun paying for them off and on until they are 35, helicopter parents!! Soccer moms who want a trophy for everybody. You'll be supporting them off and on until they find the nirvana job in many cases.

Edited September 21, 2012 by greg775

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[Balta1701]

OMG! A local school administrator slightly overreacted! Bring out the cannon! Sacrifice 3 kids with peanut allergies!

[Iwritecode]

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.

 

I was wondering if these schools would take the ban away after the student has left the school or if the next school the student went to would implement the ban.

 

In our district they don't stay in any one school longer than 3 years unless they fail a grade.

[StrangeSox]

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:

School Superintendent John May said a policy has been in place at the elementary school for about six years, banning food products containing peanuts, because at least one student has severe allergic reactions to even breathing near peanuts or products containing peanuts.

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.

[Balta1701]

I was wondering if these schools would take the ban away after the student has left the school or if the next school the student went to would implement the ban.

 

In our district they don't stay in any one school longer than 3 years unless they fail a grade.

6 years at the same elementary school, 3 years at the same middle school, 4 years at the same high school for me.

[StrangeSox]

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.

[Iwritecode]

OMG! A local school administrator slightly overreacted!

 

That's usually the root of these stories. That's why kids are getting suspended for having a plastic key-chain that looks like a gun or bring a plastic knife in their lunch.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.