Diabetic nephew and Thanksgiving

[FireDancer]

Wow. So much for human compassion and kindness to others.

For me it is a question of liberty and that is one of the very few subject I am passionate and unwaivering on. I demand the liberty to eat what I want, even if you can't. I see it as a right to choose. There are threads all over this board about the right to choose. The right to choose to breast feed or bottle feed. The right to choose to get a vaccine or not get a vaccine. The right to spank our kids or put them in time out. I put the right to eat what I want up that as just as important. I support your right to make these choices for yourself and expect the same courtesy. You of course have the right to not eat them if you are allergic but just like your choice to bottle feed doesn't stop someone else's right to breast feed your choice (even by necessity) to not eat any food doesn't stop my right to eat it. The fact that just sitting next to me is a problem for you is just that, a problem for you.

I am unwaivering in my defense of anyone else's right. As long as I am not overtly violating yours I feel no guilt. Me sitting there using my hands to put a piece of food in my mouth involves only me. If I grab my sugary yams or peanut butter sandwich and shove it down your throat I have now crossed the line. I'm sure those who have the allergies have a different take but that is because it is self serving to ask someone else to give up their liberty. Those of you who don't care about this right to choice are free to waive it, that doesn't mean I will. We have too many liberties taken away from us in this country to give them up voluntarily. I pick very few battles in life but this is one in which I am entrenched.

 

[TurboKitteh]

Those of you who think you have a right to eat what you want, regardless of the health risks to anyone else around you, especially regarding nuts and nut allergies, please be aware that your eating peanuts can release small particles of the nuts into the air (pretty much rendering them airborne) which is recycled through the air filtration system of the plane. Your "right" to eat what you think is your "right" can harm or kill someone else and they do not have to be sitting next to you.

Allergic reactions to peanut have been reported on airplanes when many packets of roasted peanuts are opened simultaneously, releasing peanut dust into the air. Measurable amounts of peanut protein have been found in the air filters of airplanes.

(Taken from the April Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI), the peer-reviewed scientific journal of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

Such tiny small things to do for others around you, yet if you think it's too much bother, too hard or too much bother , maybe you should just stay home and eat whatever you'd like without having to worry about other people.


Some of the things of read here are amazing to me in the cruel thoughtlessness espoused.

 

[FireDancer]

Such tiny small things to do for others around you, yet if you think it's too much bother, too hard or too much bother , maybe you should just stay home and eat whatever you'd like without having to worry about other people.

This is a perfect example of the exception trying to dictate to the rule. I wonder if Darwin would have a theory about a sub-population of a species being so fragile.

 

[Plannin'Shannon]

I'm sure this is off-topic, so I apologize in advance.

I understand what you're saying, FireDancer. Truly, I do. But I can't help wondering, what would you do if your child had a severe allergy? Would you still eat a peanut butter sandwich in your home just because it's your right to do so? Would it make a difference if it was your child, as opposed to someone else's? Just curious.

ETA: I'm all for the right to eat as I please, but to me, not eating peanuts in the presence of someone with an allergy is a minor concession to make. As much as I love me some peanutty-goodness, I can stand the wait.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

Well tonight was not a complete waste of time. Y'all have written an exam question. Does one have a protected interest in bearing and consuming peanuts?

-PunchyLawProfessor
(who has a severe allergy, don't be a hater)

 

[FireDancer]

I understand what you're saying, FireDancer. Truly, I do. But I can't help wondering, what would you do if your child had a severe allergy? Would you still eat a peanut butter sandwich in your home just because it's your right to do so? Would it make a difference if it was your child, as opposed to someone else's? Just curious.

So you mean would I choose to not eat a peanut sandwich around my child, yes, I would chose not to. I am still the one making the choice. It is also inside my home. If I went into your home and you had a son with an allergy I would not eat one either.

I was referring to choosing what to eat in a public place. I would not force anyone else not to eat a peanut around me or my child. I would not make his school tell all the other kids that they can't bring in some peanuty goodness for lunch. When in public the burden to avoid the peanuts would be on us, not on society.

What one chooses to do in their own home or the home of another is not the same as what should be dictated on pubic property. Often the former is used to deflect from the later.

Well tonight was not a complete waste of time. Y'all have written an exam question. Does one have a protected interest in bearing and consuming peanuts?

-PunchyLawProfessor
(who has a severe allergy, don't be a hater)

That would be an interesting legal case. I would think that as worded it is too narrow though. Wouldn't the real question be "does one have the right to choose to consume the legal food of their choice without third party interference?" The specific food should not matter nor the reason that the third party wants to limit it. I consider don't eat peanuts because of my allergy the same as don't eat meat because animals have faces. Either way person A is trying to influence person B's freedom to eat legal food C for reason D. C and D should not matter.

Narrowing it to peanuts just masks the greater question.

 

[Plannin'Shannon]

So you mean would I choose to not eat a peanut sandwich around my child, yes, I would chose not to. I am still the one making the choice. It is also inside my home. If I went into your home and you had a son with an allergy I would not eat one either.

I was referring to choosing what to eat in a public place. I would not force anyone else not to eat a peanut around me or my child. I would not make his school tell all the other kids that they can't bring in some peanuty goodness for lunch. When in public the burden to avoid the peanuts would be on us, not on society.
What one chooses to do in their own home or the home of another is not the same as what should be dictated on pubic property. Often the former is used to deflect from the later.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. I wouldn't mind making your life easier by avoiding peanuts in a public place while in your allergic child's presence.

The "It's our allergy, our problem, not yours" argument sounds good, but for parents of these children, it just isn't always that simple. A minor concession on my part would go a long way.

 

[FireDancer]

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. I wouldn't mind making your life easier by avoiding peanuts in a public place while in your allergic child's presence.

The "It's our allergy, our problem, not yours" argument sounds good, but for parents of these children, it just isn't always that simple. A minor concession on my part would go a long way.

And as long as that is your choice and not a mandate I support it 100%.

My issue has nothing to do with whether or not anyone does or doesn't eat anything anywhere. It is with the notion that that choice be dictated.

Perhaps that didn't come across clearly, but it is what I was trying to say.

The thing that made me think about the allergy issues is the original request that the entire dish be made with Splenda because only one person couldn't have sugar. This is the same everyone change to accommodate the one odd case thinking that leads to the no peanuts in the entire school policy. The OPs nephew should have asked if some of the yams can be set aside before the sugar is added. No problem. That person can have their sugar free yams (that they add Splenda too) and everyone else can have their normal yams. In this scenario everyone gets what they want. No one is forced to conform to anything. I say the same for peanuts/dairy/meat/any other food. I'll eat what I want you eat what you want and we both get what we want. The only exception is that some people are so allergic just being in the room is a problem and for them it is their responsibility to avoid the situation, not everyone else's responsibility to bend to the will of the few. Patrick Henry had a very good quote about how liberty is superior to life itself. I agree whole heartedly.

 

[mcco5543]

Didnt' get a chance to finish the thread but no one has pointed out yet that Splenda is WAAAAAAAAAAAY sweeter than actual sugar.

I found this out the hard way ! lol

 

[LaraK]

And as long as that is your choice and not a mandate I support it 100%.

My issue has nothing to do with whether or not anyone does or doesn't eat anything anywhere. It is with the notion that that choice be dictated.

Perhaps that didn't come across clearly, but it is what I was trying to say.

The thing that made me think about the allergy issues is the original request that the entire dish be made with Splenda because only one person couldn't have sugar. This is the same everyone change to accommodate the one odd case thinking that leads to the no peanuts in the entire school policy. The OPs nephew should have asked if some of the yams can be set aside before the sugar is added. No problem. That person can have their sugar free yams (that they add Splenda too) and everyone else can have their normal yams. In this scenario everyone gets what they want. No one is forced to conform to anything. I say the same for peanuts/dairy/meat/any other food. I'll eat what I want you eat what you want and we both get what we want. The only exception is that some people are so allergic just being in the room is a problem and for them it is their responsibility to avoid the situation, not everyone else's responsibility to bend to the will of the few. Patrick Henry had a very good quote about how liberty is superior to life itself. I agree whole heartedly.

You remind me of my baby brother, and even myself when I was young to an extent, who was much more sure about the certainties of life before he actually experienced it. It's easy to be an idealist when you haven't had to actually function effectively in the world. Perhaps we should have this conversation again in about ten years. I figure one of two things will happen, either you will have realized that life is not written in black and white but in shades of the rainbow or you will be a very miserable human being having alienated everyone around you.

I am familiar with the slippery slope theory of liberty, but as humans we also have a responsibility to conform to certain levels of human responsibility. Just as screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, infringing on others liberty to maintain your own flies in the face of the argument you are using. Think about it a little bit. What you are, in effect, advocating is both the right to individual liberty (your right to eat a peanut butter sandwich) and at the same time the removal of individual liberty in another (the severely allergic individual who now can not fly). That is illogical. By your argument, if I yell fire in a crowded theater, causing mass panic with multiple deaths....I am expressing my liberty.

Sorry to wax philosophic at 6:30 in the morning...

 

[tasha99]

Basically, yes. Good motivation to learn good social skills and not be rude.

If you are so allergic than the burden of finding a different seat is on you, not on me. If you absolutely can't, and I think that is very rare (even on a full plane someone would probably switch with you) a little grace and politeness goes a long way.

In the end it just isn't my problem. I have enough of my own, I don't need yours.

Not everyone is going to have the same level of social skills--it's just a fact of life that there are grumpy people out there, or people with issues relating to others. They have a right to breathe just as much as charming folk.

I don't buy your argument that eating what you want involves only you. If you are on a plane where airborne particles could kill your allergic neighbor, what you're eating very obviously involves someone else. Your ability to eat a PB sandwich on any flight, even at the expense of your neighbor's life, is more important than your neighbor's right to life or your neighbor's ability to fly (rather than drive for days). The rationale behind what you're saying is all about liberty, but the end result is all about entitlement and the "me me me" we see so much with people today.

 

[Disney Doll]

Personally, I don't like peanuts enough to care.

If someone is allergic and they coud get really sick or die, I would choose to exercise my liberty to not eat them. I also don't like candied sweet yams and I'd like them less fi they were made with that chemically-tasting sickeningly sweet Splenda.

So basically, I am not allowed on this thread!

And firedancer, as cute as you are on that other thread, this whole "the world is black and white with no shades of gray" is truly not appealing, and "cute" only takes one so far.

 

[BelleWDW]

The thing that made me think about the allergy issues is the original request that the entire dish be made with Splenda because only one person couldn't have sugar. .

A regular sweet potaoe cassarole, using Splenda-no problem.
What many posters on this thread don't understand is CANDIED Yams the way "Grandma" makes is like making candy and requires real sugar.

No one in our family doesn' love our nephew-its a classic dish we eat once a year and EVERYONE talks about it and drools with anticipation for it.


This was just a humorous post, that I guess some people must make issue with

 

[Jennasis]

And as long as that is your choice and not a mandate I support it 100%.

My issue has nothing to do with whether or not anyone does or doesn't eat anything anywhere. It is with the notion that that choice be dictated.

Perhaps that didn't come across clearly, but it is what I was trying to say.

The thing that made me think about the allergy issues is the original request that the entire dish be made with Splenda because only one person couldn't have sugar. This is the same everyone change to accommodate the one odd case thinking that leads to the no peanuts in the entire school policy. The OPs nephew should have asked if some of the yams can be set aside before the sugar is added. No problem. That person can have their sugar free yams (that they add Splenda too) and everyone else can have their normal yams. In this scenario everyone gets what they want. No one is forced to conform to anything. I say the same for peanuts/dairy/meat/any other food. I'll eat what I want you eat what you want and we both get what we want. The only exception is that some people are so allergic just being in the room is a problem and for them it is their responsibility to avoid the situation, not everyone else's responsibility to bend to the will of the few. Patrick Henry had a very good quote about how liberty is superior to life itself. I agree whole heartedly.

"Give me peanut butter or give me death."

I couldn't resist.

Dude...you've been down this path before. I remember a thread on this same subject where you (And ONLY you) extolled the same nonsense about your right to eat peanut butter wherever you darn well please despite the notion that doing so could kill someone. Nobody will convince you to think otherwise...your rumbly tumbly trumps everything. We get it.

Nut allergy folk can rest easy at night knowing that your opinion is in the severe minority, thank God.

Otherwise, I generally enjoy your brand of pull-no-punches style posting. No really...i do! OMMV. Carry on.

 

[fimac]

You know, I again just have to gasp at the flip nature of some of the responses on here. It's actually quite hurtful when I'm going through the first holiday season since my son lost food. We still cry together as he realizes a new thing he can not eat now.

You have no idea...NO idea what it's like. My son is allergic to Chicken, Turkey, Beef, Peanuts, Tree Nuts, Milk, Eggs, Pears, Peas and Chocolate. He flunked his last endoscopy, so we may still loose soy and wheat. You may wonder what he can eat? Not much. In fact, to get nutrition he drinks a horrible formula that the moms of these kids call "juice vomit". We do not go out to eat...ever. He can not attend birthday parties (unless I bring food for him). He can not have a birthday cake at his own party. He can not eat pizza. He can not go to McDonalds. If you bring in cupcakes to class he will watch your kids eat. He went trick or treating, he can not eat the candy.

Thank God he doesn't stop breathing if he's exposed, instead his body thinks the food is a parasite and releases white blood cells to fight the food, which builds up a layer of cells causing vomiting, severe pain, food impaction, food aversion and other long term, chronic results. I guess we're faking it, even though the malnutrition that he will suffer if we don't aggressively treat his disease will cause his vital organs to begin shutting down.

I have never asked for anyone else to change their eating patterns, just have a little empathy for how much life can SUCK for these kids and adults. I could have. In fact, the school offered to ban all food from home in his classroom. I didn't want to do that because I know in this me me me society the other kids, and more likely their parents, would hate me and my son. Instead he watches your kids eat the good stuff. My five year old has said several times that he just wants to die....hows that for a self-centered kid who only wants to ruin your chance to enjoy your peanut butter.

I know I sound holier than thou sometimes on these allergy/food issue threads, but as I said earlier...this is my life. I live it every day. Food is a four letter word in my house. Mealtimes are agony more than enjoyment. Every day. Every meal. Every time. Next time you mock someone for food allergies or watching their sugar/carb intake because of diabetes, think of that. Our lives are not a joke.

Hi parent of a very sensitive celiac kid who cannot do dairy or soy either.
If your school is offering ban all food from home in the classroom I would urge you do. The school should be able to arrange an alternative venue for the kids to eat. We had 2 years when my sons class was in portable classrooms where no eating was allowed in the classrooms ( It was considered a choking hazard with not enough supervision)

When my son returned to classrooms where eating was allowed in the room he was constantly sick, we have now reached the point where he is being homeschooled because the schools cannot provide a safe environment for him.

I am finding that a lot of the celiac kids are not in the classrooms round here for this very reason. So I urge you to take what you get from the school and keep fighting for what is best for him. The kids in his class can eat what they like a home they do not need to make him suffer.

 

[FireDancer]

You remind me of my baby brother, and even myself when I was young to an extent, who was much more sure about the certainties of life before he actually experienced it. It's easy to be an idealist when you haven't had to actually function effectively in the world. Perhaps we should have this conversation again in about ten years. I figure one of two things will happen, either you will have realized that life is not written in black and white but in shades of the rainbow or you will be a very miserable human being having alienated everyone around you.

I am familiar with the slippery slope theory of liberty, but as humans we also have a responsibility to conform to certain levels of human responsibility. Just as screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, infringing on others liberty to maintain your own flies in the face of the argument you are using. Think about it a little bit. What you are, in effect, advocating is both the right to individual liberty (your right to eat a peanut butter sandwich) and at the same time the removal of individual liberty in another (the severely allergic individual who now can not fly). That is illogical. By your argument, if I yell fire in a crowded theater, causing mass panic with multiple deaths....I am expressing my liberty.

Sorry to wax philosophic at 6:30 in the morning...

The peanut on a plane issue is one small and pretty insignificant part of the overall whole. The bottom line for me has nothing to do specifically with peanuts or even food. The 10,000 foot view is that a small portion of the population can effect the free choice of the rest, and that is the issue. In this example it is food, in others it is not. What percentage of the population has an allergy so sever that being in different parts of a building can kill them? I'd bet it is pretty small. Using an edge case to dictate law is just not a good idea. There are people allergic to pets yet I would not want public parks to not allow them. If you are that allergic it is up to you to stay out of the parks.

Making it specifically about any single issue (food, religion, reproduction) and instead about the general category of free choice is attempting to mask the overall argument. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

As far as being miserable I am the farthest thing from miserable. I am pretty much never in a bad mood, always smile and engage with those around me (even 4 year olds), and feel everyone I know has the right to do what they want even if it is different than what I want. I run with a very libertarian group and we are all very much the same, do what you do. I find it difficult if not impossible to know what someone is like in real life from postings on a message board. Threads are about narrow topics that form a very small part of the whole.

In a case when one liberty (choice) effects another (life) and they are truly mutually exclusive only the courts can decide, not a bunch of us posting back and forth on a message board.

I also don't buy the fire in a theater argument because that is an overt act. If I were to grab my peanut butter and shove it in the face of someone allergic I would be performing an overt act. If I blew sugar in the face of a diabetic or poured milk over the head of a lactose intolerant person I would be performing an overt act. The extreme edge case that is death by proximity is just too rare for me to base my opinion on. I take the more 10,000 foot view of it. No one is going to convince me other wise.

"Give me peanut butter or give me death."

I couldn't resist.

Dude...you've been down this path before. I remember a thread on this same subject where you (And ONLY you) extolled the same nonsense about your right to eat peanut butter wherever you darn well please despite the notion that doing so could kill someone. Nobody will convince you to think otherwise...your rumbly tumbly trumps everything. We get it.

Nut allergy folk can rest easy at night knowing that your opinion is in the severe minority, thank God.

Otherwise, I generally enjoy your brand of pull-no-punches style posting. No really...i do! OMMV. Carry on.

Well, like I said, it isn't really about peanuts or peanut butter at all, but I appreciate the humor.

I would definitely classify myself as pull no punches. I don't sugar coat...I don't even have sugar in my house

And firedancer, as cute as you are on that other thread, this whole "the world is black and white with no shades of gray" is truly not appealing, and "cute" only takes one so far.

I don't think the world is black and white but I think some issues are. I think most people have issues that they feel strongly about and what those issues are very from one person to the next. Some times all those shades of gray are just distractions from the black and white part, sometimes they are not. It depends on how you view the particular issue. I wouldn't tell you or anyone else how to view any issue or how to act in any situation, I just expect the same.

 

[3prettyprincesses]

What an interesting thread this has turned out to be!

I think what Firedancer is trying to say is simply that severely allergic people shouldn't expect everyone to cater to their unique needs. He didn't say he wouldn't ever. His point seems to be that it isn't a 'right' that allergic people have, to make demands based on their allergy. And I have seen that demanding attitude in real life settings...school and coops. Perhaps what he's trying to get across is that it's the parent's (or adults) responsibility to ensure safety. If flying on an airplane might actually threaten your life due to allergy (peanut particles in the air and such), then perhaps you should make different travel arrangements. I don't mean this to sound harsh and uncaring. But demanding that an entire class (or school) change their eating habits because of 1 child? It seems the needs of 1 are trumping the needs of many. Again, I truly feel horrible for people dealing with these kinds of allergies. I understand the emotional argument of parents with severely allergic children, they don't want to see anything happen to their child. But it's up to them to ensure their child is safe. It is a huge responsibility to put on others. And before anyone gets all up in arms, I have dealt with children with severe allergies before and it's very difficult.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

There are threads all over this board about the right to choose. The right to choose to breast feed or bottle feed. The right to choose to get a vaccine or not get a vaccine. The right to spank our kids or put them in time out. I put the right to eat what I want up that as just as important.

There are limitations on all of those choices, too, though. You have the right to bottle-feed your child. That doesn't mean you have the right to get up in the middle of a board meeting and drive home to give your kid a bottle. Nor do you have the right to take a bottle away from a stranger and give it to your child. Or you can make the choice to do either of those anyway and see what happens.

Having a choice doesn't mean that you are given carte blanche to do whatever you want.

I see nothing wrong with eating a peanut butter sandwich. I eat them myself. But if I found out that the person near me was allergic, I would certainly realize that pizza tastes just as good.


And on another note... I offer an invitation to the OP's nephew to come enjoy Thanksgiving dinner with my family. We're crazy and fun and we will not be offended when you ask if we can use Splenda. I'll even drive to the store and buy it.


People complain that the true meaning of Christmas is lost in the commercialism. I think what's truly important in life has been lost long before Christmas rolls around

 

[FireDancer]

What an interesting thread this has turned out to be!

I think what Firedancer is trying to say is simply that severely allergic people shouldn't expect everyone to cater to their unique needs. He didn't say he wouldn't ever. His point seems to be that it isn't a 'right' that allergic people have, to make demands based on their allergy. And I have seen that demanding attitude in real life settings...school and coops. Perhaps what he's trying to get across is that it's the parent's (or adults) responsibility to ensure safety. If flying on an airplane might actually threaten your life due to allergy (peanut particles in the air and such), then perhaps you should make different travel arrangements. I don't mean this to sound harsh and uncaring. But demanding that an entire class (or school) change their eating habits because of 1 child? It seems the needs of 1 are trumping the needs of many. Again, I truly feel horrible for people dealing with these kinds of allergies. I understand the emotional argument of parents with severely allergic children, they don't want to see anything happen to their child. But it's up to them to ensure their child is safe. It is a huge responsibility to put on others. And before anyone gets all up in arms, I have dealt with children with severe allergies before and it's very difficult.

That is a wholly accurate summary of everything I have stated.

There are limitations on all of those choices, too, though. You have the right to bottle-feed your child. That doesn't mean you have the right to get up in the middle of a board meeting and drive home to give your kid a bottle. Nor do you have the right to take a bottle away from a stranger and give it to your child. Or you can make the choice to do either of those anyway and see what happens.

You do have the right to leave the board meeting and go home and feed your child. No one will arrest you. Your employer would in turn have the right to let you go if they wanted to. Rights are bound by law, and taking the bottle from a stranger would constitute theft and therefore be illegal.

Having a choice doesn't mean that you are given carte blanche to do whatever you want.

I agree, as I stated, you are bound by law. You also have the right to assemble but do not have the right to break into my home and assemble in my living room. To try and stretch what I have said to include criminal activity is disingenuous.

I see nothing wrong with eating a peanut butter sandwich. I eat them myself. But if I found out that the person near me was allergic, I would certainly realize that pizza tastes just as good.

I see nothing wrong with this either, as long as it is your choice to do so. If it is a situation like a school or building where the person could easily move I would probably eat my sandwich and they can go sit somewhere else. If it were a situation where we could not move and I was asked nicely I would probably delay my eating. What you chose to do is irrelevant to me, the fact you choose yourself is. That is all.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

I'm not willing to risk someone else's life just to prove a point. I guess that's just the choice I would make.

Would you at least call an ambulance? Or would it depend on if doing so was required by law?