This is What's Wrong with America

ignayshus · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:28 pm

and now? What about after the bathroom? Fwiw I washed mine when I was a kid and still do, and I don't have health problems either.

Weena · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:33 pm

I don't wash my hands after the bathroom.

Unless I shit on them.

Which is tops... TOPS, two, maybe three times a week.

ignayshus · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:46 pm

I suggest a book our something to keep your hands occupied so youre less inclined to defecate on them?

Weena · **Posted:** Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:48 pm

That's what my penis is for.

When it's not urinating of course.

Necrachilles · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:23 am

Fun Weena beat me to it.
Just glad I'm not the only one quoting Carlin in this thread.

Dvergar · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:25 am

dek wrote:

I didn't wash my hands all the time when I was a kid, unless I actually got them, you know, dirty (and with something more than just dirt). Yeah, I'm sure I got a few colds that I wouldn't have otherwise, yet I survived and my immune system is pretty strong these days.

You weren't/didn't live with a kid with these kinds of problems. The issue isn't "these kids should wash their hands anyway" it's "these kids should wash their hands to keep their classmate safe, and washing your hands twice a day isn't a big deal". From my experience with kids, I would imagine the rest of the class doesn't give two shits about having to wash their hands, it's only the parents who decided to teach their children it's ok to be intolerant of others with disabilities.

Aestu · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:29 am

Dvergar wrote:

Helps if you read the whole thing.

Quote:

Immune disease doesn't work that way. This isn't heavy metal or radiation poisoning. In fact in immunology it works exactly the OPPOSITE way you are describing, which is the principle behind vaccination - exposure to small, non-threatening amounts of an allergen will cause gradual tolerance to greater amounts that would have initially been dangerous.

We should all know how well a school classroom full of 9 year olds functions as a precise laboratory, so I went ahead and bolded the part that makes what you said irrelevant.

I see you've sunk to name-calling now. At what point did "three doctors" declare this patient had nothing to worry from peanuts? The child was tested by professionals and found to have a severe and life-threatening allergy. But hey, I'm sure the doctor who didn't see her (and the other two you made up?) has a much better grasp of her personal situation.

You're taking all my responses out of context.

1. "Peanut butter to mouth and eyes." Not, "touched something made with peanuts then jabbed another kid in an orifice". Again...if it were necessary to take such precautions, if that were a legitimate threat, it would have been mentioned in the materials, and hell that kid's father and mine would have insisted we do likewise.

2. I'm not calling you names. I'm calling these parents rednecks and looking at the region they live in I feel quite justified in doing so.

3. "At what point did..." Read the thread.

As to this individual, we don't know that "professionals" decided such extreme precautions were necessary, all we know is that her parents insist on it. And again, that guide is COMPREHENSIVE. If there were individuals with "super-severe" peanut allergies I don't see why that would be excluded and there is no reason to believe THIS ONE PERSON has a peanut allergy different from what is very common.

On the contrary, the peanut allergy page on Wikipedia corroborates the impression that there is intense and irrational fear associated with this particular allergy.

dvergar wrote:

You weren't/didn't live with a kid with these kinds of problems. The issue isn't "these kids should wash their hands anyway" it's "these kids should wash their hands to keep their classmate safe, and washing your hands twice a day isn't a big deal". From my experience with kids, I would imagine the rest of the class doesn't give two shits about having to wash their hands, it's only the parents who decided to teach their children it's ok to be intolerant of others with disabilities.

The mother clearly stated that "we want to let this girl attend school, accommodate her", etc. The accommodations they are asking for are unreasonable and unnecessary and the product of their own irrational fear.

A "disability" isn't a blank check to put upon the lives of others to no end. Having a disability does not make one exempt from petty human motives. It's like Israelis citing the Holocaust to argue they can do no wrong.

Aestu · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:32 am

ignayshus wrote:

A child cannot be required to protect themselves from others, let alone other children (hell I can't protect myself from other children smearing their snot/slobber/etc on me).

None of which is a threat, as the pamphlet stated.

ignayshus wrote:

The kid has a constitutional right to a public education in his district.

Constitutional right? No. The Civil Rights act is federal, not constitutional, law.

ignayshus wrote:

The ironic thing is these same outraged parents would also go apeshit at the administrators for not taking proper precautions to safe guard the kid after the school faced program cuts due to litigation.

You're right in that fear of litigation is the driving force here, but that litigation could not be based on any valid grievance as the scenarios being outlined are impossible.

dek · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:32 am

Dvergar wrote:

dek wrote:

I didn't wash my hands all the time when I was a kid, unless I actually got them, you know, dirty (and with something more than just dirt). Yeah, I'm sure I got a few colds that I wouldn't have otherwise, yet I survived and my immune system is pretty strong these days.

You weren't/didn't live with a kid with these kinds of problems. The issue isn't "these kids should wash their hands anyway" it's "these kids should wash their hands to keep their classmate safe, and washing your hands twice a day isn't a big deal". From my experience with kids, I would imagine the rest of the class doesn't give two shits about having to wash their hands, it's only the parents who decided to teach their children it's ok to be intolerant of others with disabilities.

It's still a terrible approach to a solution assuming it's a real problem. It's worse than a Rube Goldberg solution, because at least those, while needlessly complex, do not depend on too many component parts that have free will and are young and immature.

Hey, my kid might die unless I can get a bunch of other kids to do something exactly right. It's obviously the best answer to try to get that to happen, rather than removing her from that potentially deadly environment.

There are other solutions that don't fail so hard from a purely problem solving perspective. It isn't a question of whether this is the worst thing to ever happen on earth, it's a question of whether it was a bad decision. It was most definitely a bad decision, because there were much easier, much better decisions available.

dek · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:36 am

ignayshus wrote:

and now? What about after the bathroom? Fwiw I washed mine when I was a kid and still do, and I don't have health problems either.

I don't compulsively wash my hands every time I step into a bathroom like some people, but yes. I didn't answer because it was a stupid question that didn't actually relate to what I said (which is what I was pointing out).

Dvergar · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:48 am

dek wrote:

It's still a terrible approach to a solution assuming it's a real problem. It's worse than a Rube Goldberg solution, because at least those, while needlessly complex, do not depend on too many component parts that have free will and are young and immature.

Hey, my kid might die unless I can get a bunch of other kids to do something exactly right. It's obviously the best answer to try to get that to happen, rather than removing her from that potentially deadly environment.

There are other solutions that don't fail so hard from a purely problem solving perspective. It isn't a question of whether this is the worst thing to ever happen on earth, it's a question of whether it was a bad decision. It was most definitely a bad decision, because there were much easier, much better decisions available.

If you think making kids wash their hands twice a day is "worse than a rube goldberg" I don't know how you function in society.

dek · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:44 am

Dvergar wrote:

dek wrote:

It's still a terrible approach to a solution assuming it's a real problem. It's worse than a Rube Goldberg solution, because at least those, while needlessly complex, do not depend on too many component parts that have free will and are young and immature.

Hey, my kid might die unless I can get a bunch of other kids to do something exactly right. It's obviously the best answer to try to get that to happen, rather than removing her from that potentially deadly environment.

There are other solutions that don't fail so hard from a purely problem solving perspective. It isn't a question of whether this is the worst thing to ever happen on earth, it's a question of whether it was a bad decision. It was most definitely a bad decision, because there were much easier, much better decisions available.

If you think making kids wash their hands twice a day is "worse than a rube goldberg" I don't know how you function in society.

No, I think attempting to make elementary school age children to do *anything* regularly, without fail, every day, is not going to work. Have you ever dealt with kids that age? Try getting them to do anything that regularly that doesn't have an immediate payoff for them in something they like.

A Rube Goldberg device is something that solves a simple problem with an overabundance of parts performing needlessly complex tasks with many points at which it could fail. This is a solution with an overabundance of actors that have to perform in concert at an age that they are least likely to do that, each one a point at which it could fail. And if it's really a bad enough problem to require this type of concerted effort, then that would mean someone's life is potentially on the line.

It's a bad solution, there are better solutions. You aren't addressing the very obvious fact that there are simpler solutions available, or why they should not be preferred.

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:40 am

Simple solution: Home school the little girl. If the parents need help paying for an in-home tutor/teacher, then allocate a very small portion of the funds to cover that cost.

Students, teachers, parents and faculty can't be held liable.
It'll be cheaper to the school system than a lawsuit over a death.
The parents can control the home environment without worrying about hundreds, or thousands, of potential cracks.
The parents can pick a person who they feel most comfortable with in order to protect the girl.

Tehra · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:29 am

the fact that someone godwin'd this thread is pathetic.

Dvergar · **Posted:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:38 am

dek wrote:

No, I think attempting to make elementary school age children to do *anything* regularly, without fail, every day, is not going to work. Have you ever dealt with kids that age? Try getting them to do anything that regularly that doesn't have an immediate payoff for them in something they like.

Washing their hands before class in the morning and after lunch is absolutely not asking too much of kids. And how is it ok for people to expect this girl to just grow up and deal with her problem but not ok to expect a kid to wash their hands? It's completely hypocritical to say she should be able to take care of x, y, and z while all the 'normal' kids shouldn't even be expected to use a faucet.

Quote:

A Rube Goldberg device is something that solves a simple problem with an overabundance of parts performing needlessly complex tasks with many points at which it could fail. This is a solution with an overabundance of actors that have to perform in concert at an age that they are least likely to do that, each one a point at which it could fail. And if it's really a bad enough problem to require this type of concerted effort, then that would mean someone's life is potentially on the line.

I am well aware of what a rube goldberg is, and washing your hands is not a rube goldberg.

Quote:

It's a bad solution, there are better solutions. You aren't addressing the very obvious fact that there are simpler solutions available, or why they should not be preferred.

Again, kids wash their hands, problem solved. That is the simplest solution available, and it is the solution currently in place.

What I'm gathering from this thread is that you guys are against the ADA? You don't think it's ok to make small adjustments so fellow Americans who are different through no fault of their own can try to live a more full life? If the kids needed to make massive adjustments, if the accommodations this child needed were excessive, then that's a different issue. This is washing your hands.

You people are supporting parents picketing a school and ostracizing a 9 year old girl just so a few kids don't have to wash their hands every day, and I am thoroughly disappointed.

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

This is What's Wrong with America

Who is online