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

That's what happens when you mess with God's intelligently designed plan? Why are we now breeding children who can not handle peanut butter, milk, gluten, polio, smallpox, etc.?
I say when the Apocalypse finally comes it'll be well deserved!

Originally Posted by gugi

That's what happens when you mess with God's intelligently designed plan? Why are we now breeding children who can not handle peanut butter, milk, gluten, polio, smallpox, etc.?
I say when the Apocalypse finally comes it'll be well deserved!

Oh, making fun of religion now huh? That's okay, I forgive you

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

sorry, I had to leave the thread at noon EST for chicken nugget lunch

Originally Posted by Jimbo

We used to call that one "Big Lunch".

James.

Damn straight Jimbo. Who had time to put down nuggets at little lunch? If you're gonna do a nugget or two you had to hang on until big lunch .


Mick

So everyone here has gotten into a tizzy over this ridiculous news item and is using it to further their political and social agenda. Now in Ohio there was a couple who were sentenced because their child was dying of cancer and they did nada and just let nature take it's course. They said they couldn't afford the treatment and the other sibling said why he played outside like a normal child and no one noticed anything odd. Even though at autopsy he was emaciated and had glands in his neck the size of softballs. Not much interest in a story like this eh? So much for the nanny state.

Hoglahoo, I'm curious, how is protecting a child from a very dangerous, life-threatening substance the sole province of "libs"? Are we to assume, then, that the children of conservative-minded people don't die from peanut allergie?

All this labelling and generalization, painting people with a very broad brush doesn't seem very productive. People are different and have different beliefs, but it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. Judging someone solely on the basis of how they vote is the height of ignorance.

Originally Posted by jdto

Hoglahoo, I'm curious, how is protecting a child from a very dangerous, life-threatening substance the sole province of "libs"? Are we to assume, then, that the children of conservative-minded people don't die from peanut allergie?

If you won't allow me some literary license, then I admit you got me I'm glad whoever has or may have the peanut allergy is being looked after, although it was overdone. By whom, I don't actually know, it could have been that the kids made a big deal out of it or maybe it's just that some eight-year olds like mine are very impressionable. Or maybe the libs did it to push their nanny state agenda, hmmmmm

Originally Posted by jdto

All this labelling and generalization, painting people with a very broad brush doesn't seem very productive. People are different and have different beliefs, but it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. Judging someone solely on the basis of how they vote is the height of ignorance.

I agree with you. It does grab people's attention though that's for sure

Originally Posted by jdto

Hoglahoo, I'm curious, how is protecting a child from a very dangerous, life-threatening substance the sole province of "libs"? Are we to assume, then, that the children of conservative-minded people don't die from peanut allergie?

All this labelling and generalization, painting people with a very broad brush doesn't seem very productive. People are different and have different beliefs, but it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. Judging someone solely on the basis of how they vote is the height of ignorance.

A problem I have is with trying to protect everybody from everything.

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.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

A problem I have is with trying to protect everybody from everything.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

A problem I have is with trying to protect everybody from everything.

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.

Amen, Amen, and Amen! and yet again amen.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Oh, making fun of religion now huh? That's okay, I forgive you

Only if you had not edited your post I would have have liked it, but now, forgiven or not, I dislike your interpretation of my words. I pray baby Jesus judge you with his big snickers!