redwhine Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 I know a better idea, we'll make sure no smokers who are good generous people can foster or adopt and we'll put all the kids into work camps instead..or, we'll give them all to paedophiles! Reductio ad absurdum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 Ridiculous in what way? Is it ridiculous also that people drink, drive, do extreme sports, fly planes? Is it ridiculous that fishermen still go to fish, when it is one of the most dangerous jobs known, is it ridiculous that people work down mines? Whether it is dangerous to health or not is not a factor in whether doing an activity is "ridiculous". Ridiculous in the way that it has no actual benefit whatsoever - its not fun, it doesn't make you happy, its expensive, it makes you smell, its really really bad for your health. Drinking makes you drunk, at least. Driving gets you places, fishing gets you fish, mining earns you a wage. Smoking is just dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 The word Nanny State springs to mind. :confused:That's two words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane39 Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 Okay who gets the kid! A home with smokers? A home with two fatties? A home with vegetarians? A home with two gays? A home with two underweight adults? A home with naturists? Or a home with Madonna? What is a normal home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 You're talking nonsense. There is no known risk if the smoker does not smoke in the house or in the vicinity of their children. What are you on about? Your arguement that there is no way of knowing if a person does or does not smoke in the house so no smoker should be allowed children is really poor. Some people abuse children. By your logic no-one should be allowed because they may abuse a child. Absolute nonsense. I could be wrong, but I would think that known child abusers would also be refused permission to foster. We all have the ability to abuse children. Some do. We all have the ability to smoke. Some do. You speak of logic. There would be no logical reason to ban people without a track record of abuse from fostering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimsid2000 Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 The word Nanny State springs to mind. It often does. It is usually used as shorthand by people who have not thought an issue through properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 Ridiculous in what way? By comparison to calling anti-smoking hysteria and ridiculous. That way. Ingesting tar and carcinogenic substances into ones lungs knowing full well the harm it causes is **********. (Please substitute a more suitable adjective than ridiculous, if you have one.) Is it ridiculous also that people drink, drive, do extreme sports, fly planes? Is it ridiculous that fishermen still go to fish, when it is one of the most dangerous jobs known, is it ridiculous that people work down mines? No to all those. When done as recommended, and after training, any danger can be reduced to unforseeable events, such as equipment failure or adverse weather conditions. An occasional glass of red w(h)ine is actually said to be beneficial to health. Taken to extremes, most things are dangerous or hazardous to health. Smoking is the only activity (that I know of) which is guaranteed, when done correctly, to have an adverse effect on both the participant (and those in the vicinity) up to and including death. Whether it is dangerous to health or not is not a factor in whether doing an activity is "ridiculous". Really? You may be able to argue that it is not the only, or even the main, factor. But not a factor at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 You can't really compare it to There is a clear benefit to children in being taken to the playground. There is a clear benefit for them in being assocaited with people with genitals There is no benefit to either them or the parent if the parent smokes. You can't even compare it to having the occasional pint. The occasional pint is not harmful to anyone. Benefit to child being with parents who love and care for the child, regardless of whether the parent smokes or not. Risk to child if parent does not smoke anywhere near child - negligable. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 By that logic, we might as well drop all attempts at improving health and safety because we are all going to die eventually anyway. You are missing two important points. A: Of course we can't protect children against all risk, but we can protect them against the ones for which their are practical solutions. People choose to smoke. It is not a freak occurence like 'an accident at a playground.' B: Is someone who would choose to continue a pointless, expensive and health destroying habit, over the child they are proposing to take responsibility for, really demonstrating that they are psychologically prepared to make the very real sacrifices involved in such a commitment, which involves frequently giving priority to the welfare of the child over personal wants? I don't know where you live with all these thouisands of smokers everywhere, but my own child comes in to contact with almost zero secondary cigarette smoke. You also cite children smoking at school. The fact that it is proved that they are statistically likely to be the children of smokers, is an argument that actually goes against what you are saying, if you think about it. By the same silly logic as people use to explain that all smokers should be banned from adopting children - regardless of whether the people wanting to adopt could give that child a happy and healthy upbringing. You are amazingly fortunate that your child encounters absolutely no smokers at all. There are very few places in the city where smokers are not encountered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 Ridiculous in the way that it has no actual benefit whatsoever - its not fun, it doesn't make you happy, its expensive, it makes you smell, its really really bad for your health. Drinking makes you drunk, at least. Driving gets you places, fishing gets you fish, mining earns you a wage. Smoking is just dumb. Smoking has no benefit to you. Smokers think differently. Drinking until you are drunk is dumb. Eating garlic or indian meals makes you smell. Being a couch potato who does not smoke is really really bad for your health. I am doubtful that there is nothing in your life that can be classed as unhealthy. I doubt that everything you do is beneficial to everyone. Welcome to the world where everyone is not as perfect as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts