Posted on 08/30/2007 6:42:03 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3
“Hey, I don’t have kids. Never did, never will. Don’t like the little buggers. So it rankles me to no end that I have to pay school taxes.”
I understand you don’t like the tax but you won’t be taxed any more with a treat ban in place. For someone with no dog in this fight you seem pretty worked up over an issue that boils down to whether or not some grade school kids in South Dakota get to eat homemade cupcakes.
BTW to help you or your friends out :
‘http://www.soynutbutter.com/'; on sale in most grocery stores, looks, taste, and has the same texture as peanut butter. Its high in protein and makes a great substitute. The only reason I don’t use it at home is because my daughter is only three and I don’t want to teach her that its ok to eat something that looks taste and smells like that.
Again I ask, what about the mailman that has a peanut butter sandwich before delivering your mail?
What law would you pass to protect your child from that?
Tell me about it, the guy instantly calls someone who supports allowing a school district in another state to do this a ‘nanny stater’. without looking at any other position they hold..
None, asking someone not to eat something in their home is beyond the scope of this policy, you have any other straw men you want knocked down?
Did you read what I had to do for my daughter’s lunch when we became a nut-free school?
Yes, they told me to change.
Instead of the 25 cent PB&J her lunches began to cost what a hot lunch would. If she would have eaten them, I would have just done that. But to accomodate those mothers, more money and more time for me.
Your being asked to pack a different lunch, you would rather have a segregated table. Isloate some kids or Change the lunches. Given the cost of a mistake is os high I believe banning nuts is the preferable solution (For the record I believed this before my Daughter was born).
‘http://www.soynutbutter.com/';; on sale in most grocery stores, looks, taste, and has the same texture as peanut butter. Its high in protein and makes a great substitute. The only reason I don’t use it at home is because my daughter is only three and I don’t want to teach her that its ok to eat something that looks taste and smells like that.
So can a teacher eat peanut butter?
Can the janitor?
What if a parent works with peanuts, do they have to have their children’s clothes specially cleaned in case of peanut dust contamination?
At what point is it unreasonable for society to change for one person?
Yea more straw men from your army...
Are they in the school or not? if they are then no, if they are home then yes.
What if a parent works with peanuts, do they have to have their children’s clothes specially cleaned in case of peanut dust contamination?
Should not be policy but a decent human being would do so.
At what point is it unreasonable for society to change for one person?
At the point they *leave a state owned building*!
“The ban is intended to protect kids who are allergic to nuts.
“....no more suckers, cookies or even apples”
What have suckers or apples ever to do with nuts?
I’m glad for so many reasons. No candy, no wind-in-my-hair bike-riding, no good toys....
It's the latest, "My kid is special," ploy.
There's a six year-old Dennis the Menace type kid that hangs around at my house. He likes to raid my candy stash.
Yesterday I told him to have a coconut macaroon.
He told me he was allergic to nuts.
So he stole two of my Hershey with almonds bars.
He ate them and, surprisingly, he still lives!
Really?
Because some kids have allergies so bad that talking with someone who has recently eaten peanut butter can trigger a reaction.
So if the teacher lives across the street from the school and eats a peanut butter granola bar for breakfast, she can walk across the street and teach your kid. But if she eats one at school, that’s banned.
Correct?
By the way, you keep using the phrase “straw man”, but I don’t think you are using it correctly.
For example, a law protecting your child from being exposed to peanuts by government workers (i.e. school teachers) can be expanded to protect your child from being exposed by other government workers (i.e. mailmen).
It’s not a “straw man” argument to extrapolate your assertions to a reasonable step forward in consequence.
Heck, it’s not even a clever non-sequitur.
But calling me “Margaret Sanger” is an ad-hominim attack and why I will not leave you alone on this one.
I admit, I absolutely hate being at the troop meetings, I really do, so I avoid them as much as possible. However, I send snacks once a month, am the troop treasurer, and am the troop cookie mom — so I do believe I do my fair share :)
At the point they *leave a state owned building*!
Then you must advocate that those children whose refuse to vaccinate them on religious grounds leave a state-owned building because they might spread a disease that could kill a child?
I am no longer amazed about that, it has now come to the point of it disgusts me.
The problem with suing Major League Baseball is that they'll force you prove your case.
Soy allergies can be life-threatening also.
And in my local supermarket it is twice the price of peanut butter.
If you want to provide such substitutes to the children of other people, at your expense, that is fine with me.
The taste reminds me of tahini, which is sesame seed butter/paste and is good for a seasoning, but lousy as a sandwich spread.
All laws, all policies have a reasonable factor to it. set up all the extreme situations you want, bring in all the straw men you care to do it does not change that fact.
So if the teacher lives across the street from the school and eats a peanut butter granola bar for breakfast, she can walk across the street and teach your kid. But if she eats one at school, that’s banned.
Hmm one is her house (read private residence) and the other is a school (read state owned public building)... Im not seeing your problem in comprehending this.
By the way, you keep using the phrase “straw man”, but I don’t think you are using it correctly.
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent"
You are trying to tie regulating what allergens are allowed in a state owned public building to peoples homes and are trying to make me defend it.
For example, a law protecting your child from being exposed to peanuts by government workers (i.e. school teachers) can be expanded to protect your child from being exposed by other government workers (i.e. mailmen).
The law is not protecting the from exposure (FYI its not a law its a school board policy but nice use of strong language) Its a law limiting what kids in in school because some of the stuff can kill a kid
It’s not a “straw man” argument to extrapolate your assertions to a reasonable step forward in consequence.
Its either a straw man or a slippery slope, both are logical fallacies.
But calling me “Margaret Sanger” is an ad-hominim attack and why I will not leave you alone on this one.
The statement that this little kids are not long for this world and are genetically inferior is pretty a eugenicist sentimate; let the strong surivive with their peanut butter treats and let the weak not breed. "but if a child can die from a situation like described above (and some can), they are not long for this world" -- Choke on our words..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.