Replies

My remarks were hit on pretty hard by several and a rebuttal is in order.

I would argue that a rational position is not necessarily cold or indicative of a bad attitude. The issue must be addressed and there are two sides.

The issue is that a child has an unfortunate and potentially fatal defect in his physical makeup and can not cope with normal life in our society. The condition is physical, not racial or social or political. To declare the individual to be other than unfit or defective is hopeful rationalization

Society as a whole is being asked to change in order to accommodate one unfortunate person who has an allergy so sensitive he could die as the result of actions by many who could inadvertently expose him to toxic substances that are to the overwhelming majority a very popular food.

Carried to the extremes Americans always take things, someone carrying peanuts anywhere near the child will be hauled into a court and deprived of all the wealth a lawyer can extract. In a public school the chances for exposure are magnified. The nefarious culprit who eats PB&J, the teacher, the principal, the school district etc all become the subjects of frivolous litigation. The concept of public school has changed to the point where schools become the enforcers of egregious social engineering bordering on the ridiculous.

There are unknown tens of thousands of Americans involved with the industry of growing, processing and selling peanut products who will be ostracized and perhaps put out of business or work. The peanut producers and consumers, including those who enjoy PB&J in school, will loose their freedoms.

At what point does the right of society to exist in a free state outweigh the rights of a defective individual? The issue under discussion is must society change to accommodate every type and kind of defective citizen or must the defective citizen change to accommodate society?

You said, "At what point does the right of society to exist .... outweigh the rights of a defective individual? The issue under discussion is must society change to accommodate every type and kind of defective citizen or must the defective citizen change to accommodate society?"

The problem is, who decides who gets the chop. Give the government this authority and whole new classes of people will spend their lives getting into positions of power, and if history teaches anything else than "people do not learn from history" a bunch of those folks will make Hillary seem no problem by comparison. Euthanasia and abortion a steps down this slippery slope.

if you are curious, study the German experience from 1900 to 1939. Even in English you can get the idea. Pay attention to Max Weber and Spengler, Nietzche and Hesse. If you prefer the Russian, try the Crimean War - Invasion of 1941 era. Chinese, try 17th, and 18th Cent. lightly, the 19th century more carefully, then Sun Yat Sen to the rule by Mao in detail.

There is a nasty slippery slope there, unfortunately. How do we decide: 1) who is defective and 2) who decides who is defective.

Could President Hillary one day sign a law that says Conservatives are defective? Yeah, that hyperbole, but you get the picture. :p

The issue under discussion is must society change to accommodate every type and kind of defective citizen or must the defective citizen change to accommodate society?

Let's change the term "defective" to "allergic." The answer is both - society and those suffering from allergies must make accomodations. For example, my daughter is very allergic to dog and cat dander. Excessive exposure would cause her to suffocate. She carries an inhalent and can use it to relieve the symptoms when she senses she has had exposure to pet dander AND is able to leave the location.

Many motels say clearly "no pets in the rooms." Yet we have stayed in motels where there have been animals and have had to relocate to another room (or motel) due to the dander contamination. Seems reasonable to me that "society" accomodate to this type of allergy through signage and restrictions like "no pets in rooms." Is this unreasonable?

The reason you were hit so hard, Bert, is because your side represents doubt and disdain toward people with allergies, while death very possibly awaits those afflicted, if their dying elicits nothing but contempt and snickers from the smug SOB's around them who have not come face to face with their own weakness and mortality.

After reviewing this poor me whine of yours, I have decided you do not deserve an explanation. What you do deserve is a good tar and feathering and a ride out of town on a rail.