General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Mom Demands School Go Peanut-Free For Allergic Child [View all]Silent3
(15,909 posts)I was asking about why the dividing line would be drawn where it is. Life is full of risks, risks we take on ourselves and risks we impose on others. Every time you drive your car to see a movie, for example, you're risking your own life and the lives of other.
The bullshit, let's-forget-all-scale-and-scope way of putting that would be, "Seeing a movie isn't worth a PERSON'S LIFE!!!111!!!". So why do we drive to see movies? Because we're all incredibly thoughtless people who don't care about killing innocents, so long as we get to be entertained?
You absolutely can die, and can kill, with a car. "This isn't some fucking stick your finger into a mouse trap and learn from your experience type thing", as some might say. Real and permanent death, as well as severe life-long injuries such as paralysis, can and do occur.
Why do we accept car related risks, but not peanut related risks? Especially when you compare the statistics, car deaths (and gun deaths, to drag in other hot topic) are much, much more common.
The kid will probably be just fine without all of the excessive over-the-top restrictions on everyone else.
Edit: I should add... In fact, my post was just the opposite of "slippery slope", because I know those broader restrictions never would happen, that it's in fact a gentle slope with very good traction. That there there is no slippery slope here is very telling about how we evaluate cost/risk benefits.