Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[squadops]

Public schooling is a joke, it's much more of an indoctrination over an education for one thing, and why the hell do people without children have to pay for it?

It sounds like the same road we will be going down with unhealth care.

To the point raised about the state always being right? That is why we have a court system. Not the best link as I'm feeling lazy but the test was passed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder

 

[FoolKiller]

There's a bit of a difference between selective sex schools and forcing girls to sit at the back of the classroom.

So, it would have been better if they just kicked all the girls out of school and claimed to now be a selective sex school?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So, it would have been better if they just kicked all the girls out of school and claimed to now be a selective sex school?

Definitely. I've worked in a couple of public schools that have been single-gender and there's no doubting that during the teen years it drives results up. That's what you pay for, of course.

That's "public" as in private fee-paying, weird British definition

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Because by freeing schools beyond the point of any real control you open it to possible infiltration. Is the answer blanket smothering of every school in Britain? No - it's unlikely governers wanting to peddle substandard nonsense will get anywhere near the front lawn of Harrow or St. Pauls.

Which question?

Who is freeing them of any real control, you act as if there is a standard of education out there at this moment that teaches ignorance or that some slippery slope fallacy will ensue if parents keep doing what yours did, and have been for decades? Which is if they don't believe in the school, district, county or even state that is teaching their kids they will take their child to learn some where else that they believe is the most beneficial.

And what makes this even more funny (to me) is that it is that same judgement call that is already teaching the kids morality and social skills before k-12 and during but with somewhat less input (or more depending). So really I'm having trouble understanding the issue, beyond what seems to be personally emotional basis for you which isn't a way to conduct this and rather not if that is the case.

The question which you somewhat answered and I go into more detail on last post who is better suited the parent or educator? It seems to me you think the parent shouldn't have much say or interaction with the child because they can be a bigot. If that's the case I shouldn't have been raised by my father who will openly call homosexuals on the street demeaning names because they supposedly go against "nature". I don't agree with that at all and it had nothing to do with schools telling me not to, it was self-educating and college if we're going to pin point any school.

Also kids need to learn to make their own decisions at some point, I'd surmise that 12 on up is probably the best start (in my opinion) not full on big decisions obviously. At some point these kids will become adults and go to the biggest institutes of bull crap peddling and that's college and universities, where you have a wide variety of professors that teach philosophy studies or religion or humanities and on and on. Some of them are biased and want you to prove them wrong or just listen, and others are more impartial and just teaching the subject. Either way mother and father and the gov't aren't there to help you wade through what is a good lesson and what is utter bull crap.

So how is libertarian thinking failing in this aspect really?

 

[KSaiyu]

Yeeeeesss?

Bringing this back to a statement I made when first entering this debate:

I think the norm would shift more to "self" than it is at present

Each reply exemplifies my original hesistance for the country I live in to become a libertarian society. The strong, those being the ones with the money and/or the highest IQ survive. The rest....well who cares.

Nope. You've answered that they shouldn't be allowed to, not why. I know you think they shouldn't be allowed to - you've said it enough - but you're not saying why.

Why should parents be allowed to teach their children things you don't agree with, but not be allowed to employ people to teach their children things you don't agree with?

There's really three questions in one there - why do you think it's okay for parents to instill what you think are harmful values into their children, why do you think it's not okay for them to employ someone else to do it for them and why do you think you get to say what values are taught to anyone's children by anyone else?Discrimination is discrimination. Qualifying it with "negative" implies there's such a thing as "positive" discrimination - like "affirmative action" - when there is nothing of the sort, only more discrimination.

I'll point out again that zero tolerance for discrimination is an extremist view - one that you think should be taught, despite saying you're against extremism in teaching...

Parents can groom their children to be neo-nazis. That's their right. Is it wrong, yes. Should I be able to do anything about it, no.
Employing someone to teach according to their extremist agenda is entirely acceptable too. This is what the private sector is for. I never argued that. I did say those educators would have to abide by their profession's ethical standands and the Equality Act. Or are we saying the Equality Act would be amended in this libertarian future....

As for discrimination, "affirmitive action" is the worst of them all. I'm not sure where you got the zero tolerance for discrimination from? It's human nature, and every person on the planet does it. Faced with a choice between a Jewish doctor on the foundation programme of post graudate medical training and a graduate from Ghana working as a locum we know who would be the most popular choice for ninety percent (including me) of the population. This is an entirely different discrimination from what I meant, clarified and seemingly have to re-clarify: Those two doctors, in an alternate world both studied in an English school, but one was forced to sit on a black chair and drink from a different fountain.

You may say, "Well the Ghanaian would tell his parents who would find a different school." Only the Ghanaians parents can't find another school, and can't afford to move as they would lose connections with their family, small but supportive African community and their jobs.

But I suppose it's the right of the parents of the majority of the towns population to turn these schools to teach such values as acceptable. And that trumps everything.

Public schooling is a joke, it's much more of an indoctrination over an education for one thing, and why the hell do people without children have to pay for it?

It sounds like the same road we will be going down with unhealth care.

To the point raised about the state always being right? That is why we have a court system. Not the best link as I'm feeling lazy but the test was passed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder

I once tutored a kid who was home schooled because the parents didn't believe in competition. His reaction to attending college after years of isolation makes me believe that giving up some of the freedom of a parent to permit more freedom for another individual is a better alternative. Speaking of rights fails to recognise the people with limited rights as people, with unfortunate consequences.

So, it would have been better if they just kicked all the girls out of school and claimed to now be a selective sex school?

In this bizarro world yes, so they could then create a female sex school to cater to the girls.

Who is freeing them of any real control, you act as if there is a standard of education out there at this moment that teaches ignorance or that some slippery slope fallacy will ensue if parents keep doing what yours did, and have been for decades? Which is if they don't believe in the school, district, county or even state that is teaching their kids they will take their child to learn some where else that they believe is the most beneficial.

And what makes this even more funny (to me) is that it is that same judgement call that is already teaching the kids morality and social skills before k-12 and during but with somewhat less input (or more depending). So really I'm having trouble understanding the issue, beyond what seems to be personally emotional basis for you which isn't a way to conduct this and rather not if that is the case.

The question which you somewhat answered and I go into more detail on last post who is better suited the parent or educator? It seems to me you think the parent shouldn't have much say or interaction with the child because they can be a bigot. If that's the case I shouldn't have been raised by my father who will openly call homosexuals on the street demeaning names because they supposedly go against "nature". I don't agree with that at all and it had nothing to do with schools telling me not to, it was self-educating and college if we're going to pin point any school.

Also kids need to learn to make their own decisions at some point, I'd surmise that 12 on up is probably the best start (in my opinion) not full on big decisions obviously. At some point these kids will become adults and go to the biggest institutes of bull crap peddling and that's college and universities, where you have a wide variety of professors that teach philosophy studies or religion or humanities and on and on. Some of them are biased and want you to prove them wrong or just listen, and others are more impartial and just teaching the subject. Either way mother and father and the gov't aren't there to help you wade through what is a good lesson and what is utter bull crap.

So how is libertarian thinking failing in this aspect really?

Of course there's a certain standard in schools (at least in the UK). How do you think Operation Trojan Horse came to light??

I believe I addresed your other point about the parent vs educator in this reply so I won't repeat.

You lose the last option when things are outright banned from being taught. You seem to think that some kind of regulation will make it impossible to teach "bad" things. I think that anything government would pass would be based on society's feelings at the time. Is everyone a racist and a sexist? Government bans female and minority education. If the government just steps out of education, then they can't ban anything.

You can also look at less extreme cases. Like Danoff said, your own ideas or the majority's ideas may be crazy. If a society is infatuated with homeopathy out of ignorance and teaching it in schools, you might not want your kids being taught about it. What do you do when it's a mandated course?

Where is this paranoia about government meddling with education coming from? Just looking at the States handling of food companies, if anything it's de-regulation that should give more cause for concern. Where else can a pizza be classified as one of your five a day because it has tomato paste on it to circumvent proposed controls on healthier eating to keep the country's obesity problem in check?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Of course there's a certain standard in schools (at least in the UK). How do you think Operation Trojan Horse came to light??

I believe I addresed your other point about the parent vs educator in this reply so I won't repeat.

So you rather not go further then with me at least

Also clarification rather than saying "I addressed", so I at least have a notion that I'm understanding you correctly so if perhaps later on I bring it up I don't get accused of being out of context, would be quite nice. Sorry that you can't be bothered otherwise or rather not answer.

 

[Danoff]

Bringing this back to a statement I made when first entering this debate:

I think the norm would shift more to "self" than it is at present

This was debunked immediately and not refuted. I very carefully explained why people do not get involved in charity when they assume the state has it covered.

Each reply exemplifies my original hesistance for the country I live in to become a libertarian society. The strong, those being the ones with the money and/or the highest IQ survive. The rest....well who cares.

...except for charity and human rights of course.

Parents can groom their children to be neo-nazis. That's their right. Is it wrong, yes. Should I be able to do anything about it, no.

If the parents are advocating that the child commit criminal behavior, that's different.

Employing someone to teach according to their extremist agenda is entirely acceptable too. This is what the private sector is for. I never argued that. I did say those educators would have to abide by their profession's ethical standands and the Equality Act. Or are we saying the Equality Act would be amended in this libertarian future....

I don't know what the Equality Act is, but my guess would be that it's bologna.

But I suppose it's the right of the parents of the majority of the towns population to turn these schools to teach such values as acceptable. And that trumps everything.

No, and that's not what was said. What was said was that the customers of the school should dictate what is taught. A school that caters to a muslim minority in a town, for example, should be able to teach what its customers (probably the muslim minority) want. What you describe is more like public schools, where the majority of the entire country gets to trump every minority in every town.

I once tutored a kid who was home schooled because the parents didn't believe in competition. His reaction to attending college after years of isolation makes me believe that giving up some of the freedom of a parent to permit more freedom for another individual is a better alternative. Speaking of rights fails to recognise the people with limited rights as people, with unfortunate consequences.

Look at you assuming you know what's best for that kid. Maybe the parents instilled something more valuable in the child by not believing in competition. My boss's boss's boss doesn't believe in competition - he's doing quite well. So yes, stop trying to force your values on other peoples' kids.


KSaiyu,

Let's try to get organized about your thoughts for a moment. What are your main concerns here? You don't want parents to be able to teach values that you don't agree with to their kids, and your'e afraid that if the majority of people around you want to teach weird values, then the people with values you do agree with won't be able to find a place that teaches your values to their kids.

But let's take a step back and look at the bigger picture. What you really want is control over the values that children are taught. You don't want it to be determined democratically - because you believe that if you're surrounded by Muslims, they're still wrong. You don't want it to be determined by the free market, because you're concerned that your values will be so locally marginalized that no school will cater to the tiny demand. You appeal to the public school system because you hope that if you get a large enough pool of people together that the people with values you don't agree with will be shut down and forced to have their kids taught things you believe. In short, you're hoping that your opinion has more people backing it than theirs, so that you can force their kids to learn what you want.

Sound about right?

 

[mirial]

You've not really defined a problem yet, but you did include "teenage pregnancy" in your list of things that secular society was causing...Sounds like you're talking about Catholicism, which hasn't been a religion of state in the UK for over four hundred and fifty years. In fact Anglicanism was founded on the principle of divorce, quite famously...

Nevertheless, I'm still wondering when the UK was not secular and when it became secular - you've not provided any dates.Okay, you've got two graphs that don't cover "broken families" (no idea what those are), teenage pregnancy or single parenthood (hint: babies born outside of wedlock are not the same thing as babies born to a single parent). So... I'm still waiting to really get to grips on what your point is about secularism in order for your question about Libertarians fixing it to be answered.


Incidentally, my marriage is non-religious and my eldest was born before my wife and I married (she was a bridesmaid). According to the graphs you posted, I'm apparently part of this ill-defined "problem"...
I don't know what a "blended" family is either, and please censor ALL of your expletives rather than just some of them.

I thought the ill-defined problem was obvious enough when I used the term 'Broken homes'. To be exact, let's now call it Single parent families. I've attached proof from the ONS.

I added the children born outside of wed-lock graph previously as it has been suggested that this leads to family instability.......if people choose to not get married of course.

As for teenage pregnancy, I came across some info on Wiki:

Comparative pregnancy rate[edit]
The United Kingdom currently has the highest teenage birth rate in Western Europe. It is a long-standing social phenomenon that successive governments have attempted to tackle without major success. The Labour Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown pledged to halve the number of conceptions to girls under 18 by 2010. In this they were unsuccessful, with only a 13% drop recorded in 2008, a level the then Secretary of State for Children Ed Balls admitted was 'disappointing',[5] although numbers continued to fall over the following two years, with a 9.5% drop in the figures in 2010 despite an overall increase in fertility.[6]
Change in pregnancy rate over time[edit]
Births to teenagers increased during the 1960s and peaked in 1971 at 50.6 per thousand of the population. Since 1971 they have gradually fallen to their lowest level since the mid Fifties. The proportion occurring outside marriage has increased from around one in six in the 1950s to nine in every ten in 2006. Teenage abortion rates are currently at their highest rate since legalisation in 1968. Although the number of conceptions are falling the proportion ending in abortion has increased over the last ten years.


With regards to the UK being Secular is open to debate, but the British Social Attitudes Survey showed that:

•In the thirty years since the British Social Attitudes survey was first produced, religious affiliation amongst people in Britain has dropped from 68% (in 1983) to 53% (in 2011).
•85% of people aged 66 plus say they were brought up in a religion, compared to 60% of 18-25 year olds. And the gap is even greater when people are asked if they are religious now. 77% of people aged 66+ say they are religious compared to 35% of people aged 18-25.
•The likelihood of young people aged 16-25 being religious varies widely by ethnicity. White British are the least likely to be religious (24% of White British of this age group describe themselves as religious), while Bangladeshis are the most likely (at 97%). In descending percentage: 95% Pakistani, 89% Black African and 87% Indian, and 58% Black Caribbean.
•Young people were asked whether religion made a difference to their lives. Muslims were the most likely group to think so (68% of them). In contrast, self-defined Catholics were the least likely to, (only 12%).

 

[KSaiyu]

So you rather not go further then with me at least

We have OFSTED, and Operation Trojan Horse was reported to the Department of Education (this didn't go through OFSTED however). These bodies are responsible for the standards in the UK.

Also clarification rather than saying "I addressed", so I at least have a notion that I'm understanding you correctly so if perhaps later on I bring it up I don't get accused of being out of context, would be quite nice. Sorry that you can't be bothered otherwise or rather not answer.

There is no "better suited" - this varies case by case. One can step in and take control of the other if either is not "best suited" to the child and their future.

This was debunked immediately and not refuted. I very carefully explained why people do not get involved in charity when they assume the state has it covered.

Debunked? Really? At the moment we have the state and charity to look out for those "not covered". In a libertarian we would have minimal (if at all) state protection with the rest taken up by charity. Do you think this society would not shift to thinking more of themselves than at present? I know the US is top of the table in the source you provided to counter this (even though they aren't in the top 10 in actually giving money to charity), but in real world terms how does this hold up in, for example access to healthcare?

...except for charity and human rights of course.

Charity as we've discussed wouldn't be fit to realistically take over and human rights favour those most able to recognise them.

I don't know what the Equality Act is, but my guess would be that it's bologna.

This is ours

No, and that's not what was said. What was said was that the customers of the school should dictate what is taught. A school that caters to a muslim minority in a town, for example, should be able to teach what its customers (probably the muslim minority) want. What you describe is more like public schools, where the majority of the entire country gets to trump every minority in every town.

We disagree on who the customers of a school should be, and even if these customers want to force a group out there should be an appropriate alternative. In some areas this simply would not be the case when the minority you describe is actually the majority.

Look at you assuming you know what's best for that kid. Maybe the parents instilled something more valuable in the child by not believing in competition. My boss's boss's boss doesn't believe in competition - he's doing quite well. So yes, stop trying to force your values on other peoples' kids.

I'm not forcing anything, the parents did and when the elder daughter (whom I never met) went to drama school and loved it they advertised for a tutor for the son to pass his GCSEs (like a high school diploma). Seeing it was beyond my scope I recommended a college, where he's due to get results next week.

You seem to believe I'm against home schooling being legal. I'm merely using that experience as an example of the problems of absolute control being handed to every parent over their child's education.

KSaiyu,

Let's try to get organized about your thoughts for a moment. What are your main concerns here? You don't want parents to be able to teach values that you don't agree with to their kids, and your'e afraid that if the majority of people around you want to teach weird values, then the people with values you do agree with won't be able to find a place that teaches your values to their kids.

But let's take a step back and look at the bigger picture. What you really want is control over the values that children are taught. You don't want it to be determined democratically - because you believe that if you're surrounded by Muslims, they're still wrong. You don't want it to be determined by the free market, because you're concerned that your values will be so locally marginalized that no school will cater to the tiny demand. You appeal to the public school system because you hope that if you get a large enough pool of people together that the people with values you don't agree with will be shut down and forced to have their kids taught things you believe. In short, you're hoping that your opinion has more people backing it than theirs, so that you can force their kids to learn what you want.

Sound about right?

It's very simple. Protect the "rights" of those who aren't able to recognise their rights. I put the quotation marks in as we could go on a never ending trail of what those rights are.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I thought the ill-defined problem was obvious enough when I used the term 'Broken homes'. To be exact, let's now call it Single parent families. I've attached proof from the ONS.

I added the children born outside of wed-lock graph previously as it has been suggested that this leads to family instability.......if people choose to not get married of course.

As for teenage pregnancy, I came across some info on Wiki:

Comparative pregnancy rate[edit]
The United Kingdom currently has the highest teenage birth rate in Western Europe. It is a long-standing social phenomenon that successive governments have attempted to tackle without major success. The Labour Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown pledged to halve the number of conceptions to girls under 18 by 2010. In this they were unsuccessful, with only a 13% drop recorded in 2008, a level the then Secretary of State for Children Ed Balls admitted was 'disappointing',[5] although numbers continued to fall over the following two years, with a 9.5% drop in the figures in 2010 despite an overall increase in fertility.[6]
Change in pregnancy rate over time[edit]
Births to teenagers increased during the 1960s and peaked in 1971 at 50.6 per thousand of the population. Since 1971 they have gradually fallen to their lowest level since the mid Fifties. The proportion occurring outside marriage has increased from around one in six in the 1950s to nine in every ten in 2006. Teenage abortion rates are currently at their highest rate since legalisation in 1968. Although the number of conceptions are falling the proportion ending in abortion has increased over the last ten years.

Peaked in the mid 1990s according to the figures on that page.

You've quoted the mostly UK numbers which include Northern Ireland where its known to be difficult to get teen conception/abortion data in certain areas.

However, for your religious comparison you used figures from Britain instead. Given that over 80% of the Northern Irish identified themselves as Christian alone in the 2011 census one thinks that the British figure stands way lower than the overall UK figure would.

I'm not quite sure how you're trying to draw the religion-bastardy-marriage argument, what do you want to see in the figures? It may well be there but I'm just missing it

 

[Danoff]

Debunked? Really? At the moment we have the state and charity to look out for those "not covered". In a libertarian we would have minimal (if at all) state protection with the rest taken up by charity. Do you think this society would not shift to thinking more of themselves than at present?

No I do not. Members in this very thread exhibited exactly the reasons why. You seem to have forgotten or ignored.

I know the US is top of the table in the source you provided to counter this (even though they aren't in the top 10 in actually giving money to charity), but in real world terms how does this hold up in, for example access to healthcare?

You mean like when healthcare is not a government handout do any charities offer it for free? Yes.

Charity as we've discussed wouldn't be fit to realistically take over

Citation needed.

and human rights favour those most able to recognise them.

WHAT?!?!

This is ours

I was right.

We disagree on who the customers of a school should be, and even if these customers want to force a group out there should be an appropriate alternative. In some areas this simply would not be the case when the minority you describe is actually the majority.

...because companies never go after smaller markets??

I'm not forcing anything

In this thread your position is one of advocating force - especially against those that wish to teach their children their religion and religious values.

You seem to believe I'm against home schooling being legal. I'm merely using that experience as an example of the problems of absolute control being handed to every parent over their child's education.

...and I'm saying your example is bad.

It's very simple. Protect the "rights" of those who aren't able to recognise their rights. I put the quotation marks in as we could go on a never ending trail of what those rights are.

I'm advocating protecting the rights of children and parents. You're advocating for some sort of weird pseudo-democratically determined list of educational values that you happen to agree with to be forced on children while ignoring the parents.

Honestly, I don't see how you can claim that your position is to protect the rights of children. You want to deny them the education their parents would provide and in exchange force your own views onto them because you think they're better.

 

[mirial]

Peaked in the mid 1990s according to the figures on that page.

You've quoted the mostly UK numbers which include Northern Ireland where its known to be difficult to get teen conception/abortion data in certain areas.

However, for your religious comparison you used figures from Britain instead. Given that over 80% of the Northern Irish identified themselves as Christian alone in the 2011 census one thinks that the British figure stands way lower than the overall UK figure would.

I'm not quite sure how you're trying to draw the religion-bastardy-marriage argument, what do you want to see in the figures? It may well be there but I'm just missing it

As for churches over here, yes, they seem to be full every week, so that makes sense with what you say. As for how much they strictly adhere to the scriptures I couldn't say. But strangers to NI would mistake the church car parks for BMW/Audi dealerships!

I'm trying to draw the religion-bastardy-marriage argument with the data presented, but so far it's the best that I can find. Ideally I'm looking for the number of sexual partners for a woman prior to conceiving as this has been considered to play quite a large part in families breaking down from a couple of individual sources.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ideally I'm looking for the number of sexual partners for a woman prior to conceiving as this has been considered to play quite a large part in families breaking down from a couple of individual sources.

I'd say that a woman whose beliefs make it less likely for her to have sex before marriage is also very likely to remain married for life "for better or for worse". It follows therefore, in that presumption, that related data would inevitably show women with numerous (or any) premarital sexual partners to be more likely to seek (or accept) divorce.

 

[mirial]

I'd say that a woman whose beliefs make it less likely for her to have sex before marriage is also very likely to remain married for life "for better or for worse". It follows therefore, in that presumption, that related data would inevitably show women with numerous (or any) premarital sexual partners to be more likely to seek (or accept) divorce.

Here's some info from Wiki for the UK (not sure how accurate it is) plus some charts from the Heritage Study carried out in 1995. Link to PDF here if you want to know more.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

Percent Of Adolescents Who Have Had Sex, Before The Age Of Sixteen[16]

Percent Of Adolescents Who Have Had Sex, Before The Age Of Sixteen[16]
Year
Boys
Girls
1964
14%
5%
1974
31%
12%
1991
28%
19%
2001
30%
26%
2008
34%
38%

 

[TenEightyOne]

@mirial; what are you saying it all means? From the data you've presented you conclude that....... ?

 

[Danoff]

@mirial; what are you saying it all means? From the data you've presented you conclude that....... ?

I wish I were in high school today instead of back in my day.

 

[Exorcet]

Where is this paranoia about government meddling with education coming from?

You imply that a government run school system with a set of values, that you happen to agree with, is in the best interest of children. I'm pointing out that your views are arbitrary and that the system you agree with is agreeable by chance.

Just looking at the States handling of food companies, if anything it's de-regulation that should give more cause for concern. Where else can a pizza be classified as one of your five a day because it has tomato paste on it to circumvent proposed controls on healthier eating to keep the country's obesity problem in check?

What is the problem?

Why on Earth would there be controls on what people eat?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I wish I were in high school today instead of back in my day.

That's certainly one conclusion They drink so much less and do fewer drugs but it's clear how they spend all that extra free time...

 

[KSaiyu]

Quick break from replying to individual posts:

Just saw this story and wondering what the consensus would be in this thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gnored-three-warnings-not-eat-nuts-board.html


Girl, 4, went into anaphylactic shock and lost consciousness on a plane after selfish passenger ignored three warnings not to eat nuts on board

• Four-year-old Fae Platten stopped breathing on a flight home from Tenerife
• She went into anaphylactic shock and was revived with a pen injection
• A Zimbabwean man ignored three warnings about eating nuts on board
• Two police officers boarded the plane after it landed at Stansted
• They escorted the man from the plane but did not arrest him
• Ryanair said the unknown passenger would be banned for two years
• Mother Katy Platten wants to warn others about the dangers of nut allergies

Where's the blame, and was it the appropriate punishment? Quite why the police would be involved is a mystery, but was the airline right to ban him in the first place. Is this not the parents fault for knowing the risks of bringing their child into a confined space. Maybe it's the airline for allowing her to fly. Or is it the passenger who ignored the repeated warnings not to open his own bag of peanuts.

As expected the comments vary wildly depending on which news website you're on.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Quick break from replying to individual posts:

Just saw this story and wondering what the consensus would be in this thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gnored-three-warnings-not-eat-nuts-board.html


Girl, 4, went into anaphylactic shock and lost consciousness on a plane after selfish passenger ignored three warnings not to eat nuts on board

• Four-year-old Fae Platten stopped breathing on a flight home from Tenerife
• She went into anaphylactic shock and was revived with a pen injection
• A Zimbabwean man ignored three warnings about eating nuts on board
• Two police officers boarded the plane after it landed at Stansted
• They escorted the man from the plane but did not arrest him
• Ryanair said the unknown passenger would be banned for two years
• Mother Katy Platten wants to warn others about the dangers of nut allergies

Where's the blame, and was it the appropriate punishment? Quite why the police would be involved is a mystery, but was the airline right to ban him in the first place. Is this not the parents fault for knowing the risks of bringing their child into a confined space. Maybe it's the airline for allowing her to fly. Or is it the passenger who ignored the repeated warnings not to open his own bag of peanuts.

As expected the comments vary wildly depending on which news website you're on.

This being the Mail; perhaps three warnings weren't directed at the man but generally announced; perhaps he didn't understand them? Perhaps he was escorted for his own protection after the poor girl's mad family went into a nutty rage, pun partially intended?

I'd say that the parents carry the most blame but the full circumstances certainly aren't ever clear from a single Mail article

 

[KSaiyu]

Got it originally from The Times, but can never tell which of their stories is behind a paywall.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4176220.ece

 

[FoolKiller]

My brother is allergic to dogs and can have severe asthma attacks triggered by it. That is far more common than nut allergies, but they allow dogs on planes as anxiety support animals. There are now more dogs on planes than beaches in the US.

Honestly, I wish the TSA hadn't turned flying into such a financial cluster so we could have special needs flights that are just the nut allergy, anxiety support animal needing, immunosuppressed people. I'd be using those flights. Honestly, if I had a nut allergy I'd hate being responsible for switching out heart-healthy, high protein, filling snacks for empty carb, overly salty unhealthy snacks. We've officially been denied the right to snack healthy.

Although for anxiety support animals, if you can't leave the house without having anxiety attacks, unless there is a walking germ factory with you then you probably shouldn't be flying. Notice: I am separating that from real support animals, like seeing eye dogs.

 

[niky]

The parents took every reasonable precaution. With an allergy that bad, the only 100% sure way to prevent an incident is full environmental gear. Which isn't typically available in children's sizes. It would also bring up a "quality of life" issue for the child. In this case, and most cases (my mother has extreme allergies, too), having an epi-pen is basically enough.

The airline is not culpable, as they took every reasonable precaution. The airline is perfectly within its rights to ban a passenger that doesn't follow airline rules.

The man was not within his rights to eat nuts. You board a private plane, you follow their rules. And he is liable for his actions. That's possibly homicidal negligence, and can be treated as such. This isn't a victimless crime, and can't be treated as such.

 

[Exorcet]

It sounds like the person eating nuts is at fault. The airline asked that no one eat nuts, they own the plane. The parents had alerted the airlines before hand.

 

[Joel]

Full agreement with @niky . The man who brought the nuts on the plane was the only one who could have reasonably prevented that from happening. He negligently brought them on the plane, and a reasonable person would have foreseen that as a problem.

He agreed to all of the airline's rules by buying a ticket, one of which is no peanuts on the plane. It's fairly simple, the plane is private property and you are responsible to follow the property owner's rules. If you went to your friend's house and they told you beforehand they were deathly allergic to peanuts, you'd be in a lot of trouble if you went over there with a Snickers bar.

 

[mirial]

@mirial; what are you saying it all means? From the data you've presented you conclude that....... ?

That it leads to a chaotic civilised society. The absence of fathers has proven to a big problem for boys growing up. Libertarians will argue that parents will bring up their children better if they are happier away from their spouse and/or with someone else. Looking at all three charts, the more longer term women think, the better.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That it leads to a chaotic civilised society. The absence of fathers has proven to a big problem for boys growing up.

Whoa, where in those figures is there an assessment of "chaos" and where are there figures that show where the fathers were? I married the mother of my first child but not the mother of my subsequent three. On those figures they'd be children-of-single-parents despite us being an average family unit bar-the-certificate.

I don't disagree with your observation that parental absence is problematic (interesting that you only choose one gender to illustrate) but I don't see you being able to demonstrate that argument with your sources thus far.

 

[mirial]

Whoa, where in those figures is there an assessment of "chaos" and where are there figures that show where the fathers were? I married the mother of my first child but not the mother of my subsequent three. On those figures they'd be children-of-single-parents despite us being an average family unit bar-the-certificate.

I don't disagree with your observation that parental absence is problematic (interesting that you only choose one gender to illustrate) but I don't see you being able to demonstrate that argument with your sources thus far.

I didn't choose the one gender - the experts did! But it clearly shows that with regards to a woman, early sexual activity leads to long-term unhappiness.....which usually leads to chaos.

Heritage study here:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

There is no indication of where the fathers were and the only up-to-date info I have on this is from the ONS (attached).

As for absent fathers, I have attached a link as there's a lot of stuff that draws lots of conclusions.

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

They show a link between the data (and state that it's only a link) but as correlation is not causation they stop short of the conclusion.

It's mathematically clear that the earlier one starts having sex then the greater the chance of one becoming a statistic of one kind or another during the period of activity. That's very evident from those figures of course.

There's little sociological examination to support the "well being" or "happiness" data... is a person's general state of happiness a 100% function of their sexual status or well-being? Of course not and those figures don't try to say it is.

I accept that they demonstrate a link between earlier sexual activity and later unhappiness (they imply a roughly 15% difference) but I think the reason they stop short of going into social context is that it's outside the scope of thses figures.

EDIT: After some research this team (a very credible one) work for and are funded by a fairly hard-right Conservative think-tank. That possibly explains them allowing their figures to take the inclination they do.

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

Superpowered agenda is superpowered, and some of that data's nearly 100 years old, are you serious?

Overall there are some little gems in there but also some quite out-of-context and out-of-time statements.

You say that all this shows;

That it leads to a chaotic civilised society. The absence of fathers has proven to a big problem for boys growing up.

The second is almost certainly true and I think you've linked some good supporting material.

Can you say the correlation is causative though (and therefore show that it leads to chaotic civilised society)? I'd say not. You could easily replace sexual data with junk food data, poverty data, neighbourhood ethnicity data... you could find lots of correlations that are actually based on overall social opportunity and circumstance.

That's not to say that all these don't play a part in creating the whole problem but I reject the idea that parent-absenteeism or the age of first voluntary sexual contact are main drivers, at least based on that.

Loved the "Famous Fatherless" though, that was a good'un

 

[KSaiyu]

The parents took every reasonable precaution. With an allergy that bad, the only 100% sure way to prevent an incident is full environmental gear. Which isn't typically available in children's sizes. It would also bring up a "quality of life" issue for the child. In this case, and most cases (my mother has extreme allergies, too), having an epi-pen is basically enough.

The airline is not culpable, as they took every reasonable precaution. The airline is perfectly within its rights to ban a passenger that doesn't follow airline rules.

The man was not within his rights to eat nuts. You board a private plane, you follow their rules. And he is liable for his actions. That's possibly homicidal negligence, and can be treated as such. This isn't a victimless crime, and can't be treated as such.

More or less the conclusion I reached. But, playing devil's advocate for a second..

Here is Ryanair's policy on passengers with nut allergys:

Please be aware that we cannot guarantee a peanut free aircraft as other passengers may bring their own peanut products onboard and some of our snacks onboard may contain traces of nuts.

The passenger who disobeyed the cabin instructions was also from Zimbabwe, and according to this report may not have spoken good English.

"The man, who is of Zimbabwean origin, had an argument with a man in the row in front before opening the bag of mixed nuts.


Two police officers boarded the Ryanair plane after it landed at Stansted and spoke to the man, who was travelling with his family.


They escorted him from the plane but did not arrest him."

Although he argued with the man in the row in front, he is understood to have told officers he didn’t speak good English.

The parents didn't actually administer the epi-pen, waiting for trained personnel to come forward to assess and give the injection. Once my allergy to penicillin was known my parents took every precaution to prevent injury, and if my child had a life threatening allergy I'm positive I wouldn't wait in the hope of medical professionals being present to assess my daughters airway is compromised before giving adrenaline.