The Biology Guru (I beat you Nick)

I would first like to state two things:

This title is very misleading (the one you posted Mr. Butler) for the rights of the community supersede the rights of the individual in all cases so if someone’s rights did infringe on everyone else’s then that person would not benefit from his or her right.  But what right are you saying the community has?  There is no answer.

My second point is that I am upset that you allowed the comment by Ms. Fritz but that was up to you.  I can honestly say it has destroyed my initial thesis and it really has defeated the purpose of posting views.  Why would anyone post a view to have it shut down by the law.  I certainly would not just so that “Liberal Voice” or “Democrat Voice” could simply quote her and demolish my opinion.  But I commend you for providing a way out of this debacle: you made it an ethics debate so it will be easier to write (unless you are the one of the guys who base your opinion on the law and defend it with it but seriously do not grope because the law is always going to benefit one side!).  My point is that the post by her will certainly reshape some people’s opinion into conformity.  I can honestly say it has made my blog less abrasive than I initially was going to write. 

I would like to point out that Mr. Butler’s blog refers to all public schools – from pre-k to 12th grade.  I could easily say that we should wait until 5th grade (or any other ARBITRARY grade level) to admit these students….too easy and I am sure that someone would argue age-discrimination or would argue the age of maturity.  We all know that kids who have not matured do bite others— thus spreading the disease.  The kid could eventually create a an exponential succession of the disease with constraints of course….not really (how do you know if the kids who contract the disease will bite others).  Next I would like to look at it in the child’s point of view….sort of.  Are kids not cruel in school and like to exclude others who are not the norm???? This kid would be the 1 social outcast in the school and would be excluded from “everyone” else.  Yes, you could simply not let anyone know of that the kid had HIV but then would you not be putting the kids in some risk…..what happens if that kid DOES bite another kid— the parents would need to be informed (otherwise I do believe the school system is neglible and would be held accountable).  Then the seeds would be planted and the news would quickly spread.   Schools could not and would not be able to restrict knowledge.  Would the principal say over the intercom “don’t anyone tell anyone that Little Joe has HIV at the risk of expulsion”.  Another point I would like to make is that there would be a strong uprisal of the parents who would be sending their kids to school with a kid who has HIV where the kids could contract the disease.  I would love to be at that PTA meeting.  The parents would be looking out for their kids safety (ahhh I found the right that the community has).  The parents would have fear at backlash with vengence against the kid.  “Johnny do not play with Little Joe…….he is different from you…..he has a disease HIV — (just letters to the kid so they would have to now understand what it does….fear tactics…you have got to love them).  One of my last points would be the widespread ignorance of the disease….well actually the widespread ignorance of catching the disease.  When you were in sixth grade and your neighbor had the flue and coughed, you covered your mouth, right?  When he sneazed on the desk, you wouldn’t even want to sit there even after an anti-bacterial  substance was used, right?  Now why would these not apply to HIV????  Do not tell me that you have always known that you cannot contract the disease these ways and if you were told that you couldn’t, you were skeptial right?  (Just like when someone told you Santa did not exist or that the moon was not made of cheese)  Ignorance prevails in the argument against admittance and you can educate the people all you want ,but there will always be widespread ignorance or skepticality (I made that word up- let me define it as the essence of being skeptical).  And we all know that the possiblility of contracting the disease is slim to none is there not a chance?  (The same chance of slim to none is applied to the lottery but people still play it too, right?)  That little chance means more than the 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that you will not contract the disease.  The funny thing is if you switched the chances people would not argue for that little chance that you will not contract the disease. 

In the end, the argument would be made that you cannot exclude individuals but are they still not excluded from others socially?  Second, I would like to say that the parents should have the right to protect their children and to be safe at mind and the children should not have to worry about Little Joe’s nose bleed giving them HIV.  And third,  irgnorance prevails and it prevents people from being safe at mind.  All in all, kids with HIV are currently held to have the right to attend school but just because it is considered a right now does not mean that it is wrong to oppose it because something this fragile can possibly change in the future as more scare is presented. 

In case you cannot realize which side I am on it is this:  I see no right (by right, I mean constitutional right) for kids with HIV to attend public school.  I see that people should have the right to be safe at school (OMG they do not let a person smoke 1000 feet away from the school for safety but a kid with a detrimental disease can associate freely….what????  You can choose to not smoke but you are prevented from having to make that choice while at school while you cannot choose to have HIV but you are right there in school with a person or people with HIV that will for sure interrupt your life).  I think that kids with HIV, though it is sad that they have it, should not associate freely with other kids without the kids consent.  If the parent wants to let his or her kid go to play at Little Joe’s house then that is their CHOICE.  Parents should not be put in a situation where they feel the only way to get away from it is to pay for their child’s education at another learning facility.   

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Since when do we put the “right” (haha I do not see it as a right) of the individual above the right of the community— It is unamerican!

.

.

.

.

* This is as lukewarm as I could get and yet still express my opinion.  If you are sympothetic to the children and feel I was unjust and are apalled by my article….did you not choose to read it?

** I accept and post ALL comments from all people whether you give a name or pseudonym.  If you just want to create animoscity, then so be it; I do not mind and you have the right to have your opinion expressed.  This is your chance to attack and destroy me if you still hold a grudge from the first 6 weeks (gee, really cought up in it aren’t you).  Mine is probably not well supported—it is simply ethics and you can choose what ethics you wish to abide by.  I will not reply to whimsical generalities or “stupid” comments (sorry if you feel your comment was educated but if I think it is stupid oh well…send me a blog cursing me out).  On a second note, I will not take the time to edit any profanity so if you write a long thesis opposing my post and one word of profanity is found, I will refuse to post it.   

If I could turn back time I would go to the big wig of science…Albert Einstein.  He was an extraordinary physicist and mathematician.  I would go and visit him in switzerland in 1904 where he was just he year before publishing his work on the Theory of Special Relativity just to test one of his later hypotheses about time travel.  He created the grandfather paradox and it incorporated 2 ideas:

1) You cannot kill your grandfather prior to him giving birth to your dad/mom because then you could not be born to kill him to prevent your birth—he assumed that something would prevent you from killing your grandfather…something kind of nice to test!

2) The second, more relevant, assumption was that information could just pop up in time.   I could take his published work to him for him to publish for me to someday read and take to him to publish…talking about a paradox

 Enough of that; Einstein was simply one of the greatest minds of all of theoretical physics.  His major contribution was that light was mass and light are both components of energy and that light has mass.  His work was greatly profound and thoughtprovoking.  He solved ideas that no one had imagined could be solved. 

The one thing that I could tell him, with my limited knowledge, would be for him to stop telling God what to do with his dice.  For those who are ignorant to this quote I will inform you that Einstein was greatly opposed to theoretical physics at the atomic level because it was said to be random and Einstein said that nothing is random because “God does not play dice with the universe”.  Someone later on said the before mentioned quote.  If he would not have spent much of his life fighting the idea of randomness then he could have solved “the theory of everything” that he was working on until his death.  Could you imagine how far we would be if he had done this???? Well no matter, we have hawking working on that conundrum. 

That is all that I have to say at this moment;  if I feel the need to add anything else, I will do so later. 

Hey world!  I would tell you something about me but that would take some of my time…..and thus I will not be doing so.  I gotta study for AP Gov and AP Bio anyway lol.