Paul, on Nov 5 2008, 12:49 PM, said:
Neither, apparently, are you. Here is it again:
Actually, I am. Please read back the post where I said "I said nothing about example; I said quite literally that overwieght people aren't stuffing Twinkies down the throats of children."
Teaching someone to do something is different from doing it to them.
Do you understand it now?
Your assessment is quite wrong.
"And before you accuse me of making a strawman argument"
The smoking ban will affect children who will be unable to find foster families.
From the article (which you may not have read)
"The plans met with mixed reactions from foster carers before the vote but the majority of fostered children consulted previously were in favour of the policy.
The children would rather be in orphanages or have other arrangements than be in smoking households.
It is a logical prediction based on expert testimony.
Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me.
And that is a reason for defending a blanket ban?
Actually, it's a reason for not dismissing it out of hand. You're dismissing it without having any actual facts and figures. I'm saying that the people who came up with this ban have probably reviewed the figures and are coming up with alternatives. The ban won't take effect for 3 years; it's not like it's happening tomorrow.
We already know that there will be some detriments because foster organizations have spoken out against it.
No; a smokers' rights group
has spoken out against it. The fostering groups have given a mixed
response. And the children themselves have been in favor
It is your job to show that the potential benefits to those children who will be unable to find foster families will be greater than the detriment of not having a foster family.
In the immortal words of Paul
, wrong again. It's the job of the Redbridge councillors and or the smoking foster parents.
And then you have the hypocrisyof banning one unhealthy choice and not banning another.
A strawman argument isn't hypocrisy. Sorry, but it had to be said.
We don't know if this ban might help some smokers quit the habit, which would be a good thing.
Funny, the foster experts do not seem to agree with you.
Um, the article said nothing about foster experts having an opinion on helping foster parents to quit smoking. The only statement about giving up smoking was "Existing foster carers who smoke will be given help to give up. " No opinion on this was given.
How was my statement black and white?
Do you agree that being overweight is a serious health risk?
Can we get off strawmen and actually focus on the question at hand? If someone is starving in my town, do I say that there are more people starving in China and because of that I can't give him any food? Smoking in foster homes is a problem. They're dealing with that problem.
Seriously, are you drunk or stoned right now?
This is your second personal attack against someone in this thread.
Yes, because axe-murderes are totally the same as smokers
It's called hyperbole.