Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Bart - your position is untenable.

Well, the fact that we have kids with severe peanut allergies attending public schools and rubbing shoulders with non-allergic kids disproves that line of reasoning quite handily.



No. It's a matter of degree, something you have evaded for this entire discussion. Here's a review:




and of course


In essence, we need to balance someone's right to eat peanuts in one hand, and the risk of anaphylatic shock and death on the other. Peanut-free schools gives these kids a chance to get to the point where they either grow out of it, or learn to protect themselves. On top of that, if allowances were not made for them, our society would have more people on welfare (because parents would have to stay home and look after their allergic kids), an even greater load on our health care system, and the government would quite possibly have to come up with other ways of caring for these people.

Untenable. Look it up if you need to.

   

First off, I would like to thank Bootlga for posting the article about deadly lactose intolerance. As of yet I have not seen one appology about my argument for banning milk yet (which by the way for those of you who did not realize was a joke), but at least I havent seen any more arguments about it not being relevant.

That all having been said I would like to thank Bart for being the only obvious voice of logic here. Only in Canada would we be having an argument about banning peanuts from all public venues, such as commonwealth stadium, when this affliction effects a small portion of the population. I agree and have no problem with companys posting things as peanut free, that is a health issue for the individual, the same as lastose free statements. But even if somehow we banned a popular product from the schools, then what's next??? Your young children play in public parks, where people picnic. So when kids get onto the playground they make fast friends of complete strangers kids. Now suppose the mother of that child has brought a picnic lunch consisting of PBJ, and kids being kids are not the cleanist of individuals. So now this child has a tiny bit of pb on his hands, and this child comes into contact with a child with a peanut allergy, and all of a sudden said child goes into anaphalctic shock. It's unfortunate but any responsible parent would be doing two things in this situation:
1. The parent would be, god forbid watching their child.
2. The parent would at all times, knowing of the allergy, carry an epipen!

So now i ask you do we ban peanuts from public parks? Or ban them all together for the sake of the small precentage of the population that is allergic?
Because ulitmately thats what were getting at here, not just a ban in the schools but an out right ban period. Imagine it now, black market peanut butter because you cant buy it in stores. God forbid that a jar breaks open on the supermarket floor, and then a child three isles over catches whiff of it, and goes into shock. What was it doing in the Safeway in the first place???? Ummm.....they sell it.

And before someone gets on their fucking high horse and says im being unreasonable all we have to do is look at the commonwealth staduim incident where a peanut ban is now in place so one mother could take her son to a football game.
In elementary schools is it reasonable to have a peanut ban? Maybe, but in the schools only. If your child is allergic then you as a responsible parent should also give an epipen to your child's teacher, with full instruction on how to use it, in case of accidental contact, because as resonable people we can not expect other parents not to feed their children food of their choice when they are at home. Beyond elementry I can not even see an argument for it, as by that point the child, or young adult as we are fond of calling them, should be able to watch for their own safeguards, and again, carry their own epipen, and know how to adminster it.

We used to be resonable in this country, I guess by reading a good deal of the comments posted in this thread we've moved beyond that. And before you post back calling me unreasonable, I urge you to reread what I have said about protecting the lives of these children while keeping the rights of the majority protected, and then see who is truely unreasonable.

   

lily wrote:
No-one is going to die because they're lactose intolerant and someone else is drinking milk. If you're going to throw out an example, try to make it relevant.


Hey Liliy, read bootlega's article on page one, maybe not from smiffing milk or cheese will people go into shock, but I swear to god it's next on the agenda. Some kid brings milk to school, and a child who is deadly allergic accidentaly drinks some, and then this argument about banning dairy in the schools will be next. Let me be clear: I DO NOT WANT OR SUPPORT A DAIRY BAN IN THE SCHOOLS.

All im saying is that before people jump down my throat for making a JOKE btw, and calling the issues apples and oranges, myabe if we looked at the potential on this one, we would see that its actually tangerines and oranges..... and I will put it another way for the more dense amongst you reading.... NOT TO FAR OF A STRECH. Yet whilst now you call it rediculous, i wonder if after the first accidental school death from Lactose poisoning, how many of you will jump on the ban milk band wagon.

   

Granted, but the next time you call someones argument irrelevant, have your facts first.

   

No the fact remains that drinking milk can kill people. Did you even read what I wrote a few posts back??? I actually support this peanut free school issue given proper limits, but the final responsibility comes from the parents being prepared for accidental contact. Tell you what, lets ban peanuts altogether. Hey while were at it, lets ban sex too, with all those STDs floating out there I COULD die from fucking the person next to me, and yes I realize there are condoms out there to protect me from that. Thats what epipens are for, its the first line of defense in the case of shock. All people with serious allergies have a responsibility to carry these things, and aviod contact with in reasonable bounds that are within their control.

I have some pretty serious allergy problems, as a reaction i have had my limbs swell to 4 times normal size, parts of my face, and my throat. Problem is that I nor my allergist knows what causes them, and they appear to be pretty random. So I carry an epipen, I do not tell people not to wear wool around me, or not wear purfume, or not eat peanuts, or shell fish around me. I am responsible for my own defense because I can not control what others do, nor would I want to, I live in a free country last time I checked. And the last time I checked Peanuts were not against the law.

   

Again thats where it comes to the parent to make sure they are prepared, and my sex argument is not rediculous. Can I die by having sex yes or no? Is it up to me to be prepared and protect myself yes or no?

And by the way, i am not resorting to hyperbole, its called comparison (Okay maybe a little bit of an over statement). But just becuase you dont agree with it, and are too inside the box to allow your mind to do a small stretch to see the validity of the comparison does not make any less valid. I use comparison, and apparantly hyperbole, to try to get you to see other ramifications outside this specific issue, but at the core are still related by the fact that they all can harm, or kill you if you are not protected. It is not up to the government to protect us from non criminal actions, it is up to us. If you have an allergy carry an epipen, if your kid has one make sure that he/she carries one, and that any adult charged with their supervision knows how to use it in case of emergency. That's called being responsible.

   

Having seen a person go into anaphylactic schock.. having been there twice once Wasp sting on my ankle... ( I used an EPI Pen hype stick syringe filled ) and second time I ate something and 15 minutes later was on benylin drip in the hospital... they figured it was a combination of substances.. ( salad dressing had anchovy reside.. apparently I am allergic to anchovies and another oil in the dressing...). not just one...that I had eaten..
Lets just say I am cautious what I eat and my kids eat.
Schools are places of learning our kids need to learn that stuff might not effect them but it sure as hell affects little suzy over there... you know the kid turning blue...

   

Sorry Lily but that was found to be not true. Peanut kiss did not kill Quebec teen: coroner

   

What have we learned from this thread?

We have learned that if we have children in a community with deadly allergies we cannot trust all those around us to care for that child's welfare and safety. We may THINK we can, since schools aim to provide a safe environment.. but as Bart has demonstrated.. ain't so.

If I had a child who could react anaphylacticly , would I trust my neighbours? Nope. too many people out there who don't understand (or care about) the true dangers, don't care about the welfare of others, and are too busy worrying about their own rights to worry about the welfare of a small child.

If I had a child who reacted anaphylactically, I"d not be leaving the safety of that child in the school's hands.

   

It is so for some of us, ponygurl - luckily some communities don't need the government to step in when its common decency is found lacking. Government need never be involved if people were just a little more understanding.

Should we 'ban' peanuts from schools, with punishment to children and/or parents that break 'the rules'? No, that's dumb, but a decent community would not have to go to such measures. It's what's 'lawful' vs what's 'right', and just because someone shouldn't force you to do something doesn't mean you don't have a responsibility to do so anyway.

   

http://www.ottawaasg.com/OASG2006/modul ... cle&sid=27

   

I'll have to check with my wife and see if she's okay with it but then...



Nice!

   

Not true. They have to come into contact with the proteins that they are allergic to. This can include skin contact, mucal contact, or inhalation.

The aroma of an allergen can trigger anaphylaxis in acutely allergic individuals.

As is common with people who have severe reactions to women's perfume.

So now your kid has to go to school with scent-free deodorant, no peanuts, cashews, coconuts, or dairy in their lunch, and we still need to cover the school and the schoolyard in screening to keep out the bees and wasps whose venom kills plenty of children.

Perhaps flower should be banned from schools because flowers attract bees?

Sugary sodas and meat should also be banned because those things attract wasps. Right?

Imagine being the parent of a child who goes to a school with one child each of the following:

1) Allergic to peanuts.
2) Allergic to cashews.
3) Allergic to coconut.
4) Allergic to dairy.
5) Allergic to perfumes of any kind.

Have fun sending your kid to school.

   

   

Lily, I guess our principle difference is that I do not trust other people with the really important things in my life.

Were it my child who was lethally allergic to *something* then the child would not be attending a public school. Period. The risks would be just too great.

Further, I would not want to burden someone else, like you possibly, with the guilt of my child's death because they happened to have a moment where they were not as diligent as usual in preventing their child from being contaminated with whatever my child would die from.

I suppose I should ask, how would you feel if your child accidentally killed a schoolmate because of a moment's lack of vigilance on your part?

Ultimately, my goal is to protect these children and see them outgrow their allergies so that they may live to be adults. Putting their lives at risk to prove some ridiculous point is, well, ridiculous.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next