Bruno says: "Chmod not, lest ye be chmodded".
James.
Bruno says: "Chmod not, lest ye be chmodded".
James.
There's something biblical about chmod 777, I think.
Well, all I know is chmod 666 is definitely in the Bible - it's about all reading and writing the book.
Now if you want to add the executions to the mix you'll be very lucky and chmod 777.
I'm gonna have to Google the conversation on this page so far, or maybe Google Translator...You blokes are speaking in tongues...Or out yer Ar...I better not say anything more...:)
Mick
A problem I have is with trying to protect everybody from everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdto
A TINY percentage of people have a problem with peanuts so we ban peanuts.
A TINY percentage of people don't feed their kids right so we blow piles of money on laws and food police.
I could go on, but I won't. Piles of well meaning but misguided regulations are burying us. Just leave us all alone.
Freedom also means the freedom to screw up.
There are kids with peanut allergies all over the place. If you run a school, is it safer to say: "it's a small percentage" or is it safer to say "no peanuts"? Strictly from a liability standpoint, I'd ban the hell out of any nuts in schools. I've seen someone almost die from getting the smallest taste of sesame. Wasn't her fault, but she still almost died in my car as I rushed her to hospital. Would you rather your kids see their little buddy die in front of them or forego a PB & J sandwich for school lunch?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
The story in question in this case is a very cursory description of the situation. We don't know the details in full, the background or the story behind the story. There have been a whole raft of assumptions made and conclusions jumped to without basis. I suppose that is the nature of hyperbole, especially on the internet. Then GIFT takes over, salvos are fired and returned and we end up with 9 pages of mostly rhetoric based on a very shallow foundation.
Unfortunately, people have proven that we need these sorts of regulations. If everyone was a great parent and fed their kids well, then there would be no need. But when the parents fail, and believe me, they do, it is our responsibility as a society to ensure their kids are protected, as best we can. That is part of being in a human community. The collective representative of society is government, as elected by us. So, when there is a need for this sort of thing to be regulated, that's what they do.
That doesn't make what that woman in this particular case did right, but it also doesn't mean the spirit of the regulation is wrong. It also doesn't mean that the government can or should tell someone how to raise their children, in minute detail. As long as the kids are relatively healthy and not being abused, that's where their responsibility stops. I would probably be considered a left-wing or liberal in your eyes (ridiculous labels, as I am probably conservative on some matters and liberal on others, just like most people), but I don't think the government has any right beyond what I've just described, nor do I see them stepping beyond that in this case. An overzealous worker simply went a bit too far on one occasion. All that was needed was some communication between parents and school and this wouldn't be an issue, but instead someone took the drama queen route and here we are.
School is where your kids spend the majority of their time, so it behooves the parents to be in constant communication with the people who are helping raise their children. No one raises their kids in a vacuum. No couples raise their kids on their own. Communities raise kids.
Amen, Amen, and Amen! and yet again amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
Strictly my opinion of course but this is where the problem lies...parents need to be parents and quit relying on others to raise thier kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdto
Are there no workhouses? Why are they in school in the 1st place? Let them work for their lunches!(:-(
Let them learn there's no 'free lunch' in this country... Except for the rich or big business.
Quite simply, you can't. No matter how great parents are, your kids need interaction with other people. Teachers, coaches, grandparents, aunts and uncles, family friends, parent of the kids' friends, family doctor, etc. All of these people contribute to raising your child. It's a normal part of living in a society. It's not a problem at all. How could you raise your kids without these people? Keep them in your house 24/7?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catrentshaving
Interaction is one thing...having others make your decisions for your kids is another. Yes, these people contribute but in the end it's your job as a parent to make the final decision and give guidance.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdto
I respect your opinion. I really do. But I have to disagree with this philosophy. I understand thing in Canada may work different and I appreciate that everyone loves their home country. Here in the US the GOV nor my community has ANY business in the raising of my child. That is the parents job period.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdto
If someone is being a bad or abusive parent we have DCS or DFS departments in every community that can take that child out of that home. In serious cases that should be done for the childs safety. But what gets packed in a lunch, even if its may not the perfect balance at any given time, isn't bad parenting. it certainly isn't worthy of government intrusion into a parents decision of how to feed their kids.
My parents ate things as children that would make the FDA curl up and die of utter shock. My dad turns 70 this year and my mom is only a couple years behind him and they are in fine health for their age. My dad tells me stories of packing lard sandwiches in butcher paper and carrying it to school in a waterpail. There were times when he and his granddad that raised him shot robins out of the yard with slingshots and ate those to have a meal. My moms family was just as poor and ate what they could get nutritionally balance or not.
I think a lot of gov agencies make mountains out of molehills on a lot of these issues and push these agendas for a couple reasons. One it is a way for them to justify their mere existence. Secondly, I do beleive they use these little things to nibble away at our freedom so the gov controls every aspect of our lives. I really beleive many in the US gov view us citizens ad mere livestock to be managed.
Just as another 2 cents while I'm here I will point this out. Anytime, community decisions are made for the group the accepted mean eventually settles somewhere very near the lowest common denominator. I saw this back when I was teaching school and the push was on for EVERYONE to pass and no child was allowed to fail. Did the sludge rise up and improve to the level of the best students? NO! The entire system has gradually dumbed down to allow the lowest common denominator to squeak by. That is why I my kids when to private school even though I was a public school teacher. This phenomena tends to happen anytime the Community takes over control of the standards.
Everyone has their philosophy about whether community rights trump individual rights and I understand that. I strongly beleive you have a better and stronger society when you let the individual rule themselves in their private and family decisions. The excellent will excel the slackers will pick up their trash every wed morning. There is a valid place in society for both.
JMHO,
Ray
I also think the government should stay out of people's lives.
I see peanut allergies as a different issue though - in my time as a paramedic I saw some really sick kids that were accidentally exposed to peanuts or peanut oil. I don't think my kids' right to eat PB&J at school trumps another kid's right to not have an anaphylactic reaction. It doesn't take much exposure to cause a reaction, and where kids are concerned it's too easy for that exposure to occur.
I think I'm not expressing myself clearly. By no means am I saying that the ultimate decision-making on raising children should be done by anyone other than the parents. But I also think that you can't deny the importance of the community in their contribution to raising your children. Children receive guidance, discipline and many other important learnings from all these people, so they are definitely taking part in the raising of your children. That is why it is important that the parents, who have the final say and responsibility, maintain communication and interaction with these other important contributors to the formation of their children.
A child spends many hours with these people. A teacher teaches them many things, as do these other members of their community. All these things contribute to forming and shaping that child into an adult. The ultimate responsibility is on the parents, but the community network they use certainly helps.
The parents are the captain of the ship, but they have a crew.
And as to government involvement, it should be limited to protecting the kids from harm. There are people who are just not fit to be parents.
Ya I agree that a safety issue is a safety issue. My wife is severely allergic to shellfish. The only time I get seafood is when we eat out an d then I have to brush and use mouthwash before I can even kiss her. (yes 20 years later I do still kiss my wife)Quote:
Originally Posted by HNSB
I don't want some kid to die from an allergy poisoning. But I beleive that can be handled at the local school board level or state level and doesn't need to be a federal mandate. There is no need for that kind of safety issue to rise to the level of the federal government.
As a parent, if I had a child with that kind of allergy I make an appointment, I go to the school board and explain to them the situation. Most folks serving on school boards are decent people and would take the necessary steps if they were not already in place at that school. That's how such things were handled when I was a kid and it worked.
it's the fault of all that modern medicine. I think we should take society back to the 18th century. All these weaklings are surviving and reproducing polluting the human race with substandard genes. It will be the end for all of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
I seem to recall a fella who had an answer to this kind of thing but his name seems to escape me now.
There were a few I think. Founder: Sir Francis Galton (also the coiner of the term "regression to the mean"). Early proponents: Charles Darwin's son, Leonard, Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, Adolf Hilter....Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
We can all, even the best of us, be lead astray by "good" ideas.
James.
I'm sure you meant Barack Hussain ObamaQuote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
or is that so 2009/2010?
And lest we forget, the founder of planned parenthood, Margaret Sanger the Goddess of all things bleeding heart and liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
I'll make a guess that this was done in response to something that happened before with school lunches. No one has the imagination to make a scenario up where a healthy turkey sandwich is substituted by less healthy chicken nuggets. Maybe some parents packed a "no no" like drugs or weapons or medicine or moldy food in a kid's lunch that led to a lawsuit or fear of a lawsuit. If it happens on school grounds, you're in trouble. Or perhaps some kids have nothing to eat, or perhaps kids steal food from others. Something bizarre happened to cause someone to do something bizarre like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by RayCover
I've read the peanut allergy is coming from lotions and other products that contain peanut oil that didn't exist until relatively recently. Having too much of something can potentially make you allergic to it. Gluten is the same way I think, you can develop an allergy to it.
This whole stink, though, reminds me of the 'USDA says pizza is a vegetable' story from a few months ago. Pizza was never declared a vegetable, but people clung to that version of the story because it fit better with whatever political belief system that they had. I think there's a lot more to this story than just giving a girl chicken nuggets and taking away her sandwich.
The pizza -vegetable thing didn't just come from a few months ago. It actually was started by Ronald Reagan who said tomato sauce was to be considered such because it was made from tomatoes. I remember when he made that remark and it stirred up a hornets nest in many circles.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChesterCopperpot
The opposite can be true also. If you aren't exposed to allergens, when you are they can hit you a lot harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChesterCopperpot
Allergy shots do this. The give you small exposure to the allergen and increase the dose until you develop a resistance. Cloistering someone can be as bad as over exposure.
http://files.redux.com/images/bc4cb2...9d24ed3978/rawQuote:
Originally Posted by Catrentshaving
Policy makers are such idiots. How about people just teach kids with peanut allergies to look out for peanuts....and ask "does this have peanuts in it?" before eating something they don't know?
What's next? A ban on certain colours because people with colourblindness can't see them properly?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
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.
What are you, some kind of Communist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeltz
I made it thru 4 pages of posts and this may or may not have been covered, but wanted to throw this out there.
I don't believe the root of the "replacement meal" is even about the nutritional value of the lunch that the parent provided. Lets face it, most schools here in the US are struggling financially. The more students that eat a school lunch, the more $ the lunchroom receives from the state. If a parent sends lunch with the child, the lunchroom doesn't receive credit for them eating...
Like I said, it's all about the Benjamin's...
Now lets be correct here guys.
It's not color blindness it's color deficit. True color blindness is extremely rare. Most have issues with red-green only. I know, I'm one of them.
My son is red-green deficient as well. I've been told that it can actually be a advantage for hunters making it easier to see through an animal's camouflage.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
I never knew that; today I learned something, Thank You Jeltz !Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeltz
I feel happy & I feel like a dumb a** at the same time. :hmmm:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeltz
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
There's a difference between consideration, and making a policy that forces a large group of people to conform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeltz
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.
That would be my response as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MickR
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.
Very far from it!Quote:
Originally Posted by ChesterCopperpot
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
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.
I agree, but I neither thank you nor like that post. We need a grudging acceptance buttonQuote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
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 pragmatistQuote:
Originally Posted by Kantian 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