Thread: This burns my bacon! More nanny state bureaucratic nonesense.

Originally Posted by Jeltz

As for your comparison with colour blindness you will never see a single crossing light which has the ability to show both red and green they will always have position or shape differences so that colour blind people can distinguish whether it is safe to cross or not.

Well we used to have something like that here when I was a kid. It went from a green Walk to a red Don't Walk...Yep that's right! No pictures. You actually had to know how to read. Shocking hey?!


Mick

Originally Posted by Jeltz

Not that simple, the reaction is often very fast and serious and it doesn't necessarily require eating transfer is also sufficient in many cases.

Imagine the scene you send your child to school with a peanut butter sandwich he/she's sat next to a child with a nut allergy. That child ask yours to pass the water which they do and a trace of peanut butter transfers to the handle of the jug. Within a couple of minutes the child goes into anaphylactic shock, if they are fortunate the school has adrenaline pens to inject the child, if not they have to hope that the ambulance reaches them in time.

My kids go to a school where nut products are banned, I don't think its law its just their policy. I have no issues with that because I don't see its important enough to risk the well being of a few of the pupils at the school. Likewise if any of the pupils had a latex allergy I would expect the school to buy non latex gloves for the cleaners etc. its just common sense.

Even though people who suffer from serious allergies are in the minority there isn't any need to see them as being insignificant enough to not warrant any consideration.

As for your comparison with colour blindness you will never see a single crossing light which has the ability to show both red and green they will always have position or shape differences so that colour blind people can distinguish whether it is safe to cross or not.

There's a difference between consideration, and making a policy that forces a large group of people to conform.

Not doing things that might kill someone else isn't mere consideration, and it makes perfectly good sense to have a law or a policy that tells people "Don't do things that might kill someone else, and here's what those things are..."

Going by that reasoning no one should be allowed out of their cotton wool wrapping. Driving 'might' get someone killed, eating a peice of steak 'might' kill you. Don't go for a swim, afterall, we're not fish, heaven forbid we 'might' drown. Laws don't make one iota of difference to what happens to people.


Mick

Yes, but laws do make a lot of difference to who is liable for what happens to others. And that is why we are all becoming nanny states. Money.

James.

Originally Posted by MickR

Going by that reasoning no one should be allowed out of their cotton wool wrapping. Driving 'might' get someone killed, eating a peice of steak 'might' kill you. Don't go for a swim, afterall, we're not fish, heaven forbid we 'might' drown. Laws don't make one iota of difference to what happens to people.


Mick

That would be my response as well.

People are responsible for their OWN actions and safety. Some consideration is in order. But it should be consideration, not enforced kindness. I would NEVER expect other people to be responsible and looking out for what MY kids eat. I would inform a teacher, but I'd never expect other kids parents to be responsible for these things.

The trouble is that society is made up of people who are either contributing to it or drawing from it. Over a lifetime people will often shift sides several times but equally some people will be a constant drain on society, paid for by the majority. As such it is important that the state looks at how best it can prevent people being a drain on their (our) resources and one way is trying targeting those people who live an unhealthy lifestyle, which will impact on their ability to contribute in a positive way, and also trying to make sure they don't pass that lifestyle to their offspring.

There is a bigger picture, the aim is to maintain things for the future generations the attitude that we should be able to live whatever lifestyle we wan ignores the fact that our lifestyles affect others too.

Currently (in the UK at least) the birth rate in families is on average 1.8 i.e. for every 2 people (who are having kids) we are producing less than 2 future tax payers. Coupled with that the advances in medical science mean people are living longer and requiring more care. So today's children are going to have a hard job supporting the cost of looking after the current working generation, as it stands we are moving towards producing a society which could be to unhealthy to support itself.

Originally Posted by ChesterCopperpot

What are you, some kind of Communist?

Very far from it!

When you grasp the fundamentals of how states work you can see that they tend to behave like a business. Although they would not admit it.

People are a commodity to states, some are an asset and tax payers others are a liability i.e. claiming benefits, for a society to succeed the the assets must be greater than the liabilities. So in a society with a reducing base of tax payers as described above you have 2 ways to tackle the problem.

1) Import - i.e. economic migration, bring workers in from other countries. This is already happening and as there are plenty of people keen to move to the richer economies from the developing world where the global population growths are occurring.

2) Improve the quality of the indigenous population. I.e. reduce their requirement for care and benefits and try to keep them able to work and pay taxes for as long as we can. Current moves to do this are reducing smoking, drinking, and drug addiction and improving their health and fitness.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

That would be my response as well.

People are responsible for their OWN actions and safety. Some consideration is in order. But it should be consideration, not enforced kindness. I would NEVER expect other people to be responsible and looking out for what MY kids eat. I would inform a teacher, but I'd never expect other kids parents to be responsible for these things.

Your first line about people is true, but little kids only barely qualify. With some allergies that severe, eating the food isn't necessarily required, so mischief that wouldn't be a big deal otherwise (e.g. a food fight in the cafeteria) could have tragic consequences. Accidents can still happen, but from a liability standpoint, the schools aren't as vulnerable if they take the cover-your-a$$ approach.

Story time: I have a similarly severe allergy to milk. In third grade, a girl who was somehow fascinated by that went into my sack lunch and snuck some Doritos in with my corn chips. Thankfully, I noticed the different taste before I ate enough to kill me, but it just goes to show that... well, little kids do dumb things, so if you're responsible for them (morally, legally, financially), you minimize the risk of harm where you can.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Yes, but laws do make a lot of difference to who is liable for what happens to others. And that is why we are all becoming nanny states. Money.

James.

I agree, but I neither thank you nor like that post. We need a grudging acceptance button

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Not doing things that might kill someone else isn't mere consideration, and it makes perfectly good sense to have a law or a policy that tells people "Don't do things that might kill someone else, and here's what those things are..."

This is pretty silly. Your argument would promote a ban on the sale, manufacture, and possession of peanuts and peanut-products nationwide. You're either missing the point or your idealism is showing through, which doesn't look good on a pragmatist

It makes a little more sense to disallow the peanuts from kids in school. Attending schools is compulsory, and the kids are minors so we don't have to worry as much about their rights being infringed upon