Nut Allergies and Children: How Others React Is Causing a Call for Increased Regulation.

[Zero Sum 305]

That came off a bit hostile, Mr. Fish.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Normal is an 'average' at the end of the day. Which would tell you that these kids with nut allergies fall far beyond the scope of normalcy.

Normal are people living in a society realizing that they live in a society and that doing so has both benefits and drawbacks. You do not fall into the category of normal people. And yet, we normal people accommodate you in these discussions. You see, you're the nut allergy kid that we have to put up with.

[Zero Sum 305]

Oh Dear... feel free to open a thread about how its ok, in your opinion, to segregate nut-allergic kids from the rest of the population into special schools, even though the education they'd receive is perfectly identical.

fail, slim.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh Dear... feel free to open a thread about how its ok, in your opinion, to segregate nut-allergic kids from the rest of the population into special schools, even though the education they'd receive is perfectly identical.

fail, slim.

Indeed. Of course now he's struck on this angle - he'll keep pounding that square peg into the round hole.

I don't get people who come up with these meaningless relativisms for completely divergent issues.

[slim 1,525]

Oh Dear... feel free to open a thread about how its ok, in your opinion, to segregate nut-allergic kids from the rest of the population into special schools, even though the education they'd receive is perfectly identical.

fail, slim.

So that's the angle on it, eh?

I gotcha now.

Since we're going there, why don't we place the allergy kids in the same boat with the Muslim kids who won't sit with everyone else during their fasting periods? We don't make the rest of the school fast because they are. (Well, not yet, anyway.... I'm sure that day's coming) Why should we make everyone who chooses nut products be barred from eating them simply because one kid can't?

What I'm still missing here is why it's the duty of the entire school to accomodate this one kid instead of the kid making concessions or taking some kind of other action to insure their own safety.

[Zero Sum 305]

Indeed. Of course now he's struck on this angle - he'll keep pounding that square peg into the round hole.

I don't get people who come up with these meaningless relativisms for completely divergent issues.

Its that rough approach to treating 'equality' on their own terms I suppose- even though it ignores reality, context, and pretty much the entire purpose of the topic originally being discussed.

[slim 1,525]

It depends on the disability/learning difficulty. Some students can learn at the same speed as the able-bodied/unimpaired kids, others cannot. For those who can't there are schools specifically designed to cater to their needs and abilities - why would you take legal action against that?

So why doesn't the allergy kid go to one of those schools?

Also, you can't read. The legal action is being taken by the "special" kid's family to make the school include their child, not the other way around. Nobody is trying to stop special kids from getting an education. What some of us are wondering is why this special kid gets to change the entire school instead of going to special school.

Indeed. Of course now he's struck on this angle - he'll keep pounding that square peg into the round hole.

I don't get people who come up with these meaningless relativisms for completely divergent issues.

Divergent issues?

What isn't relative in the entire world, especially when we start talking about "public" things like schools?

[Zero Sum 305]

So that's the angle on it, eh?

I gotcha now.

Since we're going there, why don't we place the allergy kids in the same boat with the Muslim kids who won't sit with everyone else during their fasting periods? We don't make the rest of the school fast because they are. (Well, not yet, anyway.... I'm sure that day's coming) Why should we make everyone who chooses nut products be barred from eating them simply because one kid can't?

What I'm still missing here is why it's the duty of the entire school to accomodate this one kid instead of the kid making concessions or taking some kind of other action to insure their own safety.

Take it to another thread, slim. Your irrelevance is showing.

As to the actual topic, read back a few pages. Even Paul brought up options, although quite unrealistic ones, in my opinion.

So why doesn't the allergy kid go to one of those schools?

Ask Paul about this. He suggested a similar scenario. I asked him to compare and contrast the costs for this, and mind you... we're talking about public and private schooling institutions now.

I don't think it would be economically feasible. Do you?

[slim 1,525]

Its that rough approach to treating 'equality' on their own terms I suppose- even though it ignores reality, context, and pretty much the entire purpose of the topic originally being discussed.

It absolutely does.

All too often in modern society we waive our rights for the inclusion of those who need something special. We shouldn't HAVE TO accomodate anyone. We should HAVE TO allow them the opportunity to include themselves if they can. They should never be allowed to take away our liberties (choosing what to eat is about as basic a liberty as one can have) in the name of mandatory inclusion.

In all seriousness, if we're allowed to legally ban peanuts in public schools, what's next? Pork?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Divergent issues?

What isn't relative in the entire world, especially when we start talking about "public" things like schools?

What you're missing is that a food allergy is not the same as considerations pertaining to ethnicity or religion, nor is it the same as physical/mental "retardation".

It absolutely does.

All too often in modern society we waive our rights for the inclusion of those who need something special. We shouldn't HAVE TO accomodate anyone. We should HAVE TO allow them the opportunity to include themselves if they can. They should never be allowed to take away our liberties (choosing what to eat is about as basic a liberty as one can have) in the name of mandatory inclusion.

In all seriousness, if we're allowed to legally ban peanuts in public schools, what's next? Pork?

Noone is talking about legally banning nuts, are they?

The OP article is talking about the stigma parents of kids with nut allergies receive from other's in regard to their children's health issues.

[slim 1,525]

Its that rough approach to treating 'equality' on their own terms I suppose- even though it ignores reality, context, and pretty much the entire purpose of the topic originally being discussed.

It absolutely does.

All too often in modern society we waive our rights for the inclusion of those who need something special. We shouldn't HAVE TO accomodate anyone. We should HAVE TO allow them the opportunity to include themselves if they can. They should never be allowed to take away our liberties (choosing what to eat is about as basic a liberty as one can have) in the name of mandatory inclusion.

In all seriousness, if we're allowed to legally ban peanuts in public schools, what's next? Pork?

[Zero Sum 305]

It absolutely does.

All too often in modern society we waive our rights for the inclusion of those who need something special. We shouldn't HAVE TO accomodate anyone. We should HAVE TO allow them the opportunity to include themselves if they can. They should never be allowed to take away our liberties (choosing what to eat is about as basic a liberty as one can have) in the name of mandatory inclusion.

In all seriousness, if we're allowed to legally ban peanuts in public schools, what's next? Pork?

You said it, slim. Welcome to modern society.

If you don't like it, feel free to segregate yourself into communities that don't care about anyone else but themselves. I bet you'd last a long time.

If pork is an allergen like peanuts, there may be a case to proceed, to your dislike. Luckily, I have not heard much of porcine meat allergies as much as those that come from nuts. This is why context is key, and absolutely critical to your making a point that can pass the BS test.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So why doesn't the allergy kid go to one of those schools?

Also, you can't read. The legal action is being taken by the "special" kid's family to make the school include their child, not the other way around. Nobody is trying to stop special kids from getting an education. What some of us are wondering is why this special kid gets to change the entire school instead of going to special school.

There are no special schools for kids with allergies. The kid cannot control their health issue, you are acting as this nut allergy isn't about something physical or biological but is instead about something behavioural. That's sort of what the article is getting at...

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I am afraid we may be messing with laws of natural selection to the detriment of mankind.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am afraid we may be messing with laws of natural selection to the detriment of mankind.

If health issues were about laws of natural selection, where would that have left you when you were in need of a heart bypass?

Edited August 17, 2011 by fishdude