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.
The Biology Guru (I beat you Nick) 
James Butler Said:
on February 20, 2007 at 5:18 am
Mike, I “unapproved” Mrs. Fritz’s comment for now. Good point in that it my bias opinion early on. Sorry about that.
meatmon Said:
on February 21, 2007 at 4:22 am
“(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!)”…cough, Maggie Nelson, cough
vicki fritz Said:
on February 22, 2007 at 4:23 am
Are you the same student who wrote earlier in your blog that you”…accept and post all comments regardless…”?
I am just curious about why you would not want to read my comment on this topic. It is an issue that I have been concerned with for my entire professional career. I have been a pioneer, in a sense, in working with children who are often the “throw away” children in our society. I answered Mr. Butler’s question because I have a genuine interest in the topic. Did you dislike his accept;ance of my comment because you simply did not wish to read an opinion that differed from yours? I think you were more on track earlier in your blog when you wrote that you accepted all comments, regardless of their content.
I certainly would not encourage you to accept comments that are disrespectful, vulgar, or inappropriate in any way–but in our country we celebrate the concept of freedom of speech. This even includes speech which is controversial or which contains ideas that are not like our own. My opinion about the rights and needs of children does not make me a “Liberal Voice” or a “Democratic Voice”. I am not a category…I am an individual whose political views you have no idea about. From my comment you can only surmise that I have a strong opinion about one important topic.
Please consider doing a little more research…perhaps on the HIPPA laws, and write again…and if you really want me to refrain from joining your classroom debate, I will respectfully drop out of this discussion. Just decide on what your position REALLY is…do you accept all comments…or not?
michaeldeckerthebiologyguru Said:
on February 23, 2007 at 2:11 am
Vicki, I am going to get clear to the point. I forgive you for your very rash conclusion considering you are ignorant to a couple of things:
1) This is a STUDENT forum in which we express our opinions towards each other and we DO NOT need to be biased due to YOUR comment. I simply stated it should not have been posted prior to everyone writing their blogs. Unfortuanately, you fabricated this entire comment based on the fact that you were upset with someone who wanted to censor YOUR comment.
2) Earlier in the year, I was RepublicanVoice and lashed at many liberal blogs and unfortuanately some people still hold grudges and I knew it would be a funny joke for them to come in as “LiberalVoice” and lash at my blog based on yours. These people would not do a single bit of research and just take your blog for fact though they would have no idea if it was true.
3) This is an ETHICS blog – not one based on law. I did not want people to think because something is law that is what the ethical thing to do is.
* I simply wanted to protect the integrity of the purpose by preventing bias to enter it prior to people making their own opinions.
** I find your comment to be very fabricated and I am offended that you would attack me as one who would want to prevent anyone from expressing opinions different from them. Did I not accept your comment? And how dare you attack me and in essence call me a liar when you have never even read anything of mine. This is a student forum for us to discuss ethics and I did not want one person’s (YOURS) to influence anyone’s personal opinion.
***As far as the research goes, I already know that they are allowed into public schools BUT this was an ETHICS blog—-and ETHICS blog. Are you suggesting I research other people’s ethical views and then take them unchanged as my own? What the law states can or cannot be done is irelevant to a discussion on ethics other than to support your position AFTER stating it as your own.
**** In the end, I forgive you for being so rash and quick to judge. You assumed (WRONGLY OF COURSE) that I wanted to prevent other people’s opinions when you had no idea of anything about me. And you misconstrued by what I said about DemocratVoice…. and thought I was referring to you. Actually, I do not see in any way how it even looked like I was pointing to you. “I just do not want ANYONE from quoting YOUR comment” . Why would you be quoting your comment—it would be a “fact” provided by you. Oh well, I hope this comment has enlightened you on the facts and history of our blogs. If not, I would love to continue this conversation.
***** I had nothing against your comment; in fact I thought it to be very concise and educated. I simply did not want the STUDENTS of a STUDENT forum to be influence by YOUR observations. I do not see how you can find me at fault for wanting to preven bias. But unfortuanately, due to your lashing at me, I self-conscienciously now no longer regard your comment to be as much worth to the discussion as I did prior to your comment. I would have no problem with Mr. Butler posting AFTER everyone has written their blogs which he will do. Oh well, I understand that you had no idea where I was coming from but that is not an excuse to rudely attack my integrity.
vicki fritz Said:
on February 24, 2007 at 1:30 am
Dear Michael,
You are right … we do not know each other…and we do not understand each other…with no judgment whatsoever, I ask you to listen to what I am saying to you…my original comment to Mr. Butler was sparked only by my personal interest in a very emotional topic. I understand that this is a student forum, however you and I are both members of the same community of learners. School systems are places for all individuals to be continually learning and thinking. I am a member of a school system. I believe I have a responsibility to be a learner for as long as I possibly can. I don’t think I know so much that I can’t read the opinions of students and learn from them. I responded to you and your classmates with an answer based on my personal ethics. I thought that was the intent of the forum. As rational and educated individuals, we have the societal duty of listening to one another. We may not agree with one another, but we need to try to understand each other.
I believe, from reading and paying attention to what you are saying, that you have many insightful opinions. I think that what you are missing in this conversation is that I never thought I would influence anyone with my opinion. I simply jumped into the discussion. Honestly, I don’t know why I did…I certainly have enough to do without reading students’ answers to hypothetical questions. But, Michael, I enjoy listening to young people and I very much respect their points of view. When I wrote my response to Mr. Butler’s question, I didn’t even know you existed.
I do not want to hurt your feelings and I don’t know anything about your integrity. I am sure you are a very nice person with a variety of opinions. Please don’t assume that I question your character in any way. I think it is admirable that you care enough to think about this topic and I hope you are responding because of genuine interest. I truly don’t know any particular protocol for blogs and if it was inappropriate for me to join in this one which belongs to your class, then I sincerely apologize.
When I was in high school, I was a member of the debate team. Even back then I enjoyed tossing ideas around with people. Disagreement does not mean disapproval. If I mention the law in my answer, it is because I learned a long time ago to support my ideas with research. I think it is a valuable tool, although I don’t think we have to agree with all laws. I do think we have to follow them, but that is another topic.
Good luck in your Biology class. It was a favorite subject of mine when I was in school. Feel free to look at my blog…comment if you like…you can find it on the Carteret County website under Bridges Alternative School.
Best wishes and sincere apologies if I have made you feel bad. That is not my style…especially with bright young people…Mr. Butler will vouch for me on that point!
Sincerely,
Vicki Fritz
meatmon Said:
on February 26, 2007 at 2:40 am
I’m going to have to side with Michael that the comment on research of HIPPA laws was absurdly out of focus of the blog activity. Your statement that such laws were research which supported your idea is preposterous as the question of the blog was whether those laws SHOULD be in place for the protection of students with HIV, not a question of the current legality of prohibiting children with HIV from attending public schools.
“Best wishes and sincere apologies if I have made you feel bad.” If you ever choose to comment my blog, please refrain from patronizing me in this way.
vicki fritz Said:
on March 2, 2007 at 4:22 am
Meatmon, you disappoint me. I didn’t say HIPPA laws are research. I said Michaeld. might want to research the HIPPA laws.
Do you think your ethics just spontaneously appear? Hopefully, you reflect and research important issues before you make decisions about the stand you take on them. Read, listen, discuss…then form your own opinion. But I don’t think you can jump to a conclusion without knowing all of the facts.
You may think this sounds patronizing, but I don’t mean for it to come across that way. In one sense we are making judgments when we answer Jimmy’s questions. Ethical judgments and decisions should be based on sound knowledge of BOTH sides of the story!
Vicki Fritz
meatmon Said:
on March 3, 2007 at 4:48 am
“Please consider doing a little more research…perhaps on the HIPPA laws (which are actually HIPAA laws), and write again…”
My argument to this statement is (to clarify for you) that:
1) laws are made by decisions of morality, not the other way around, and
2) this blog asked us to form our ethical position on which such laws would be formed
You have yet to convince me that research of HIPAA laws would help me to form my moral position, although research of the FACTS that the HIPAA laws are based upon could serve as research for decision making.
I don’t know where you got the idea that I posses the ignorance to believe that ethics spontaneously appear, as I argued that morals should not be spontaneously based upon current legislative actions. I have a close family friend who is ill with AIDS and who has lost his partner to AIDS, and as an AP Government student, I am well aware of equality laws in regard to the public school system. I did not even state my position in my comment, so I am truly flabbergasted as to how you came to your conclusion that I form my moral opinions on a biased whim.
I hope this comment finds you less disappointed than my last.
michaeldeckerthebiologyguru Said:
on March 3, 2007 at 5:08 am
A tip of my hat to you Margo. This blog was beautifully written and I am sorry Mrs. Fritz refuses to allow you to form your own opinion. Simply because there is a law in place, then that must be what is correct. Gay marriage is illegal in all but one state so obviously it is morally wrong 98% of the time an is only morally correct in one state……..what???? Something is right or wrong not right and wrong….maybe Mrs. Fritz would consider this comment or maybe she will be inconsistent and fail to equate the two. I am going with the latter one! Vicki, just because laws state something is legal or illegal does not mean that you have to agree that that is moral or immoral (or ethical or inethical). It is sad how abrasive you are in your comments and yet fail to provide any convincing reason to support your opinion other than “it is by law that my ethical position is correct”. If the law changed would that mean it would be inethical in your eyes?????????? At least when I was abrasive in my comments, I (or at least I think) was capable of providing an intelligent reasoning!!!!!!
colindsmith Said:
on March 4, 2007 at 4:38 am
Michael,
“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!”
Could you further explain the previous quote? What do you mean by “the community”? I would interpret that if laws are created by decisions of morality, then the Bill of Rights and the judicial system reflect that the protection of the individual’s rights—as long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others—is of high moral importance in America.
vicki fritz Said:
on March 4, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Okay, Michael and Meatmon,
You have to admit this has been a fun debate. What is the point of a blog if you never get any comments?
I know originally you thought I might bias others, but did I really? Or did I just spark a bit of discussion in a friendly forum? I think at some point I mentioned that I was on my high school debate team. I have always loved a good argument…and you guys have managed to keep my attention…if your opinions were just ordinary “blog” I would never have taken the time to respond to you.
So, what do you think? Are you going to ban me from the next topic that Mr. Butler tortures you with, or is it okay if I pop in?
Now, this is very serious…I am not joking, being abrasive, patronizing, accusing, etc. I truly don’t know you guys and I don’t know “blog” etiquette. I have never joined in any discussion like this before … discussing hot topics on the internet is not my normal activity. So if “outsiders” shouldn’t join a student forum that exists for a particular class, I totally respect that and will never do it again. You tell me, how does this work?
And as for Mr. Butler’s opinion on the subject, I know what he thinks. I am asking what you think. Come on and educate me!
Vicki Fritz
PS Beware! If you do invite me back for a round or two on the next topic, I plan on doing a mountain of research before I type a word…and as I understand it…”all’s fair in love and debate…”
vf
James Butler Said:
on March 4, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Michael,
Please respond to Colin’s question in regards to your quote:
“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” – Michael D.
Are we misinterpreting this? You seem to suggest government policy should follow the “mob rules” doctrine?
Clarify for us please.
PS You refer to Vicki as “abrasive” Certainly you jest? This coming from the guy who blasted poor Christi C. over the amphibian misnomer? Oh my!
michaeldeckerthebiologyguru Said:
on March 4, 2007 at 11:49 pm
In reference to Vicki Fritz; I have no right to ban you from a blog nor do I wish that you do not respond. I would like for you to share your opinion and back it up rather than beating to the drum “if its law, its right” as you have the entire time. I am going to state one last time: this is an ethics blog that has no basis on what law is and you surely included law in your comment which I am sure did bias some opinions. It made me be less abrassive in my blog so for you to state such a rash conclusion that it biased no one……well…..it would be WRONG!
michaeldeckerthebiologyguru Said:
on March 5, 2007 at 12:19 am
In regards to Colin (and Mr. Butler); it is not mob rule (Mr. Butler) but my rights cannot infringe on the community’s rights (let me define the community as simply everyone else’s rights that might be infringed); if it is between me and you or me and a few then it would not pertain to this rule. My right to say fire in a movie theatre would not be protected for it infringes on everyone’s else right to safety. As for as ethics (in regard to Colin’s interpretation), I cannot respond because when you separate your words with dashes the things before and after the dash should relate (or be understood if you omitted the phrase in the dash). The two ideas are seemingly contradictory or are superfluous and really are pointless. For the fact that I cannot quite understand what you are expressing, I refuse to object or support you interpretation.
And Mr. Butler……oh Mr. Butler……I have no problem with Vicki being abrasive. I like that I have a companion to actually carry on an intelligent debate with. I like how she sticks to her point and does not buttercoat her words. The only problem I have with her comments is that her support and elaboration have no relevance to an moral obligation blog. Everything she said was of no use to support her blog. “Because the law supports me, I MUST be right” —- heck if you live by this code then nothing would ever be changed. Heck everyone today would still be racists………. If you are going to be abrasive then do not go off on a pointless tangent that adds nothing to your blog. If I am discussing the effects on drugs to society, would I go off on a tangent that the Chinese have used the herb opium is extracted from as a caffeine supplement for thousands of years…….just because they both apply to drugs does not mean that the latter supports the prior. The laws she stated did pertain to HIV but did not support her position as it is unethical to keep them out of school! He support and elaboration would be used in a forum where the question is “how would you react if a child with HIV were banned from your local high school”.
My comment to Christine was quite abrasive even in the kindest light…….I do not have a problem with abrasiveness as long as it is adequately supported. If you are going to insinuate that I am a hippocrite with no integrity then you had better have some support along with the claim rather than a fabricated idea that you created just in spite of me attacking your position.
colindsmith Said:
on March 5, 2007 at 4:09 am
Michael,
I apologize for my poor grasp on grammar. I thought I had only one brief point, but thanks for revealing “them” as superfluous and pointless. I’ll try to curtail my language so that it reads as mellifluously as yours:
I find your statement about individual and “community” rights alarming. I’ve never heard of the right of a community. I’ve only heard of rights in terms of individuals and entities (e.g. corporations) that are treated the same way as individuals. When I hear an argument about ethics, rights, or privileges, I think of said concepts in terms of effects upon the individuals involved.
For example, if a person yells fire in a movie theater and unnecessarily disturbs the moviegoers, I see that the person has affected each individual. If there were fewer moviegoers, then each individual would still have been affected. If there were only one other moviegoer, I argue that the yeller is as responsible for disturbing the lonely moviegoer as he was responsible for disturbing any individual in the larger crowd.
The only difference between harassment of an individual and harassment of a group of individuals is the amount of people involved. When a group of people is formed, it doesn’t take on any special group property that makes it more meritorious than an individual.
That’s how we arrive at a problem when HIV-infected individuals want to attend public schools: neither Jake nor Betty nor Jill exhibits moral properties different than the HIV-positive Francis, yet nobody wants the disease to spread.
I wonder what you mean by “right of the community” and why you seem to say it is American to protect it above the right of the individual.
“Since when do we put the ‘right’ (haha I do not see it as a right) of the individual . . . ”
Do you mean to say that you don’t see the individual as having rights? Communities are aggregates of individuals. If the individual doesn’t have rights, then where do the community’s rights come from?
michaeldeckerthebiologyguru Said:
on March 5, 2007 at 4:46 am
Ah I love the sarcasm……useless really. My point was not made in spite but w/e. By the community, I mean the rights of all other individuals….well for the most part. My right to free speech is above yours to of safety from acts of hate unless harm or danger can occur. I think that those are the key words. Harm and danger are the things that prevent you from exercising your rights. And of course being unconstitutional would be grouped together. Government and politics is really confusing when it comes to rights and liberties. In its most basic form, the rights of the community (not defined as an aggregate of people, but rahter anyone else other than you) is those laws that maintain social order or prevent harm or danger from occuring. Of course social order is temperant. If you want to stand outside of a church off its property and yell remarks that would be deemed unethical, you have that right. I am sorry that I cannot quite give you a clear definition of a community. My quote was really simply made to act like an extremist and get a laugh out of someone. You took it for more than that so I am now bound to answer your question. Try asking a humanities professional (a teacher) if they can give you an answer but if not I will try to find you one eventually. I am sorry for my ambiguity on it all; I was just simply stating a superfluous phrase that is thrown around in your basic civics class. I cannot quite clarify it because their are so many exceptions to the rules. I am sorry for this and I hope it does bum your week out. Forgive me and I will try to give some clarity on this matter at some point in the future but I go to get some form of studying for he AP Bio test tomorrow 😦 .
courtneyg Said:
on March 7, 2007 at 12:01 am
I’m slightly confused…you said the “uninfected” kids should not be allowed to associate freely with the HIV child, so what next? Do the ignorant parents all pull their “uninfected” children from the school system leaving little HIV Tommy all alone? Or is HIV Tommy supposed to attend another school with all his HIV friends? How would you, yes YOU Micheal, like to be in either situation if you had contracted HIV? Just curious…And also, I hardly see smoking at school as an applicable comparison. The number of people with lung cancer is enormous, of course its a hazard to the little kids inhaling second hand smoke. But HIV? From a number of sources I’ve read it has never been contracted in a school setting…NEVER…Hope to hear from you soon 🙂
michaeldeckerthebiologyguru Said:
on March 7, 2007 at 1:12 am
Lol….those are the only letters that I should use to answer this comment. Yet, I am procrastinating studying plants so I guess I will take some time to waste here. You know that I do not accept “what if” questions. I abhor them…. the fact is you can dream what if all you want but that does not change reality. To look into the eyes of who it affects is a useless way of coming to any conclusion. What if I lived in the USSR…….well I guess I would be for communism and against democracy….so guess what——– I am NOT going to claim there perspectives on world affairs as acceptable nor will I claim to be communistic just for the simple fact that they have different views. Let us get back on topic. Well I guess I would feel a little bad but regardless of what I feel does not change what happens. Just because I feel bad does not mean our law makers should give up working on protecting other kids. As far as your comment on my smoking comparison…..well it is highly acceptable. Why can someone not smoke in a private vector where only those who want to be around it be around it but yet people cannot choose that they do not want to be around a student with HIV but yet are forced to? (I know a little wordy……the jist of it is their is not equal treatment under the law….hmmmmmm that reminds me of one of those amendments we value so dearly…..oh well) I do not know if anyone has ever contracted HIV from another kid at school but I bet if it has happended then it is rare but I would be willing to bet that it does happen and no one knows. You are not allowed to know who has HIV due to right of privacy so unless you get checked for HIV after each encounter with someone else then you probably would have it and not even know it (thus not being reported). Oh well, you have a passionate feeling about it and for that I do not laugh at but I do laugh at your use of what if as your major argument. All in all, it was a good comment. But now I am done procrastanating bye 🙂 .
`Sharron Said:
on March 13, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I do not think that his is a case of who has rights and who doesn’t because we as students have no rights…as they like to point out to us every day. We are students when we come to school not americans, just students.
Sam H Said:
on March 13, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Well… I certainly support you saying that “..the rights of the community supersede the rights of the individual..” If I knew my child was going to be in a classroom with an HIV infected child then I would switch their class or change schools. It is unfair for someone elses child to be at risk just because you thought it was a good idea to send your HIV infected child to public school. For the good of the community the child should have to be homeschooled.
Chad G. Said:
on March 13, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Michael in your opion I find it interesting to listen to the very insitful things you have to say regarding this subject witch buy the way is a very touchy one for most.
I agree with the point you are tring to get across to others and I respacet the fact that you are willing to listen to what everyone elses opion is, it takes a real man to stand buy and take a beating and cum back with such inthusasm tords there comnit and at the same time defend your own.
kaylee D. Said:
on March 13, 2007 at 12:55 pm
I like the way you talk about everything..u cover all the point and u put the way you say stuff in a lot of different ways soo everyone can relate, but I’m not saying that students shouldn’t be allowed. I mean I would be afraid if some sat next to me who had HIV, I would be cautious. What’s going to happen when they leave high school go to college and get a job. I mean there going to have to interact with all the other people in the world with who don’t have HIV. So why cant they just start going to school together at a young age.
meatmon Said:
on March 13, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Vicki Fritz: Michael and I hardly tried to ban you from discussion on our biology blog; obviously if we had, your comments would have been quietly deleted. I hardly dare imagine where you got the idea that we did not welcome your debate, because, as seen above, we voraciously responded to each of your statements. We already stated that we welcomed the presence of outsiders to our forum, so I do still find your statement patronizing. “All’s fair in love and debate” and that is exactly why Michael and I brought you in to our discussion as an outsider and continued to argue against you. I understand that you were on a high school debate team, but that does not automatically validate your unbacked statements. I’m sorry to see that your debate team experiences did not teach you differentiate between ethical and legal conundrums.
Colin Smith: I am not disagreeing with your statements about the “rights of the community,” so I will put the question to you in terms of individual rights. Do uninfected INDIVIDUALS have the right to an education safe from the threat (however minor it may be) of HIV infection?
michaeldeckerthebiologyguru Said:
on March 13, 2007 at 11:02 pm
To all the people who commented me (or for those who care to read this)- thankyou. I appreciate your input and admire your care. My only problem is I was hoping for more criticism. It is all fine and dandy to be told you did a good job but eventually I would like to argue with someone else of an intellectual calliber higher than Vicki Fritz. Oh well………I can only wish. To the one brave soul who did dissent from my opinion, I appreciate how you did it in a kind manner and yet still expressed your opinion fully. Do not feel that I require this; if you want to bash me to death and point out every fallicy I made then you have that right. I do not know if your are a genuinely good person and cannot even begin to insult someone or if you were on your best behavior so that I would not block you. In the end I admire your courage to take a stand (as do I admire the rest of you). Feel free to enter the fray any time with our upcoming blogs. 🙂
michaeldeckerthebiologyguru Said:
on March 13, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Margo………have I ever told you that you ARE my hero. H-E-R-O. I praise you as a god among gods of intellect. I like our comradery in destroying Vicki Fritz. I cannot wait to destroy her next time. Remember one thing:
H-E-R-O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
colindsmith Said:
on March 13, 2007 at 11:17 pm
meatmon,
No.
madelynnsblog Said:
on March 15, 2007 at 10:59 pm
I wish I would have been paying attention to this when the big debate was going on. I read all the comments on Mr. Butler’s page to catch up on what I’ve missed and decided to add my thoughts. (This is in response to something you wrote on Mr. Butler’s blog on March 3) You said “No where in the constitution is the right to an education (basic civics class; maybe you had it once?)” Well I have had civics, but I’m wondering if you have. For the record, the Constitution of the United States of America is not the only constitution. Every state has their very own constitution, and guess what, education is mentioned there. In fact, if you were to look at the constitution of North Carolina, you would see “Sec. 2. Uniform system of schools.
(1) General and uniform system: term. The General Assembly shall provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools, which shall be maintained at least nine months in every year, and wherein equal opportunities shall be provided for all students.” I don’t know if you are familiar with the Bill of Rights, but in case you aren’t the 10th Amendment states “powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from exercising, are ‘reserved to the States respectively.'” Therefore, the right to an education is infact a constitutional right. People have rights and to take those rights away would make the US no better than the governments we are trying to “liberate” people from. But hey, the government can already scan our private messages and force us to show ID whenever and check into all our private information “for our own protection,” why not let them make our health records public as well? (sorry about adding the little touch of politics, nobody wants to see a Miss Liberal vs. Mr. Conservative showdown here, I just couldn’t resist making that statement)
michaeldeckerthebiologyguru Said:
on March 15, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Madelynn….funny comment of yours….funny. Obviously you are a little rash in the subject. By the Constitution, it is naturally assumed that it is the Constituion of the United States……no one is going to assume a specific state constituion. The 10th amendment gives the states to make their own laws which means that education does not come under federal jurisdiction which means your point well was pointless mostly because it was wrong. It is obvious you have only read up to March 3 because I have mentioned…..I dunno maybe a thousand times….that the right to an education is upheld by STATE constituions. Maybe you should read all of the debate BEFORE making a comment….because when you do…..well you write a completely wrong and rash comment like you did. No hard feelings Miss Liberal
madelynnsblog Said:
on March 15, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Michael, I have to hand it to you, you do have a way with words. When i first read that comment I thought “wow I’m a fool and I’m wrong!” Then I thought about it, if it is a state law, then it is still something that is protected by law. Mr. Butler never said it had to be regulated by the federal government. Case and point. Now that I see that you are not interested in state laws, only “federal jurisdiction” I see that it would be pointless trying to debate this with you. I could only think to come up with something that has already been said and you would make the same statement you have made “…..I dunno maybe a thousand times….” If only there were statistics to back up either of our arguments. You didn’t give any reason why I was wrong, just that I was. I’ve heard all this hype about the Michael Decker blog so I wanted to check it out. Honestly, it would take more than a simple “you are wrong” to impress me. I shouldn’t have waited so long to jump in on this debate because at this point it is no longer interesting. The next topic will be a good one; you can expect to hear a lot from me then. No hard feelings Mr. Conservative.
michaeldeckerthebiologyguru Said:
on March 16, 2007 at 12:25 am
You have a way of corrupting words I must say. The point I was arguing was because people keep on saying that it is in our U.S. Constituion that there is a rgiht to an education which would be wrong so I pointed it out to them. If it does come down to state jurisdiction then each state would choose for itself. As for why you are wrong….you stated it was protected under the 10th amendment so thus it was a Federal clause which would be wrong because if it comes under the jurisdiction of the states then it is under the jurisdiction of the states. You cannot justify your answer through indirect interpretation. You are wrong for the fact what you stated was wrong. I am not going to spend an hour explaining the tenth amendment to you. And as far as I am concerned I did tell you why you were wrong in my first post. Unfortuanately, you ignored it. And you are wrong because you stated that I have nerver heard of state constitutions and yet I stated them 100000000000 times. I did plenty enough to prove you wrong. It does not matter to me if you cannot see it. Once again, I bid adue Miss Liberal.
cluettich Said:
on March 18, 2007 at 7:17 pm
thank you michael for pointing out my error. I corrected my blog and hopefully it is up to your standards. Thanks for keeping me in line.