Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Smokers are banned from fostering

Health Smoking 2008

  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#21 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 09:23 AM

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

Actually, the group that called for someting to be done, has said the following:

Right; they said that it was a "good move". That's not "speaking out against it".

They are speaking against the blanket ban. It is right there in the article.

Quote

Quote

Which is exactly the same thing I have been saying all along. A blanket ban is not the right thing to do.

Note what else it said in your article: "Redbridge council said the new policy, which does not extend to private foster carers" So much for a "blanket ban".

Yeah, it still is a blanket ban on non-private foster cares. Apparently enough for the group to get concerned about.

Quote

Quote

No, they would be forced to prove a negative.

Paul, I don't think your rhetoric is helping. You charged me with a job that wasn't mine; I merely pointed that out.

So you admit you have no argument in favor of it? If not, I would like to hear it cover the question of the detrimental effects I have asked you about five times. Sure, you can say "I support it (although I cannot really point out if the detrimental effects are smaller than the benefits". Sounds like you are making an unfounded assertion.

Quote

Quote

Show me how my statement is a strawman.

You're saying that because something isn't being done about one [arguably] perceived problem that we should just ignore another.

No, I am saying that if they do this a) it will effect civil liberties and b) then they also should go after other, equally unhealthy lifestyles. Otherwise they are hypocrites.

Quote

Quote

The article I am looking right now at (the telegraph) has said exactly the opposite. See the quoted text above.

I repeat. No statement was made by The Fostering Network about a smoking cessation program for foster parents. You can't say that the opposite was said when they didn't address the matter at all.

They did address the blanket ban, which is the central issue of the argument.

Quote

Quote

The only one who has advocated a strong black and white position is you in this thread when you spoke out in favor of a blanket ban.

1) it's not a blanket ban.
2) all I said was that it wasn't a stupid idea
3) you're the one who is saying that there shouldn't be a blanket ban; sounds pretty black and white to me.

Are you in favor of it? Because your tone gives me the impression you are.

Quote

Quote

And they are dealing with it in a wrong way.

That honestly sounds like a black and white statement to me.

As much as it might sound, it is as much a black and white statement as any positive or negative opinion is. Which is precisely what it is -  an informed opinion, not a black and white fallacy.

Quote

Quote

I didn't recognize it as such, but if you say it is, alright then.

The simple fact is that smoking is harmful to children.

Obesity is as well.

Quote

What if it was a guy who is a great father, but at the end of every night, he slaps the child in the face. Is that any better?

I see you are engaging in hyperbole again.

Edited by Paul, 05 November 2008 - 09:23 AM.

"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#22 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 09:31 AM

Argh, you know what Broph? I think we'll just have to disagree on that. For you, the overwhelming issue is protecting the children's health from smokers, however casual they might be, for me the overwhelming issue is the quality of foster carers and civil liberties and I am quite willing to let them suffer casual smoke sometimes as long as those are not regular or chain-smokers.
"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#23 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 09:49 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

They are speaking against the blanket ban. It is right there in the article.

Saying that they don't agree isn't the same thing as saying that something is wrong or should be reversed.

Quote

Yeah, it still is a blanket ban on non-private foster cares. Apparently enough for the group to get concerned about.

1) Having private foster care is an alternative.
2) We don't know that the group is "concerned about" it; they were asked an opinion

Quote

So you admit you have no argument in favor of it?

Paul, seriously. Your attitude is not helpful. Constantly saying "do you agree" and "so you admit" is not helpful.

Quote

If not, I would like to hear it cover the question of the detrimental effects I have asked you about five times.

The detrimental effects of what?!

Quote

Sure, you can say "I support it (although I cannot really point out if the detrimental effects are smaller than the benefits". Sounds like you are making an unfounded assertion.

Paul, please clearly state what you're going on about. I'm not going to re-read the entire thread and go through all the quotes to try to figure out what you're asking about.

Quote

a) it will effect civil liberties

IMHO, you're being dismissive of the childrens' civil liberties and their opinions. They're the ones who should matter here.

Quote

b) then they also should go after other, equally unhealthy lifestyles. Otherwise they are hypocrites.

Maybe they will; maybe they won't. Maybe they don't think that there is enough risk to warrant further study. Just because there are other problems doesn't mean that they shouldn't be working on this one. Just because they may not agree with you that overeating may or may not be an issue doesn't make them hypocrites. I'm sure if they do find that there are overeating problems that they'll at least consider what to do. Foster parents are individuals; they're interviewed before they can take on children. I'm sure the interviewer can assess how well the potential parent will take care of the children.

Quote

They did address the blanket ban, which is the central issue of the argument.

OK, but you made a statement about smoking cessation; that was my point.

Quote

Are you in favor of it? Because your tone gives me the impression you are.

Asked and answered.

Quote

As much as it might sound, it is as much a black and white statement as any positive or negative opinion is. Which is precisely what it is -  an informed opinion, not a black and white fallacy.

No; you made a statement. If I am driving North, I can't be driving South; it's one or the other. You said that something was wrong. You didn't say you thought it was wrong; you didn't say that it was your opinion that it was wrong; you didn't say that it was a little or a lot wrong; you said that it was wrong.

Quote

I see you are engaging in hyperbole again.

Do you see the point?

#24 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 09:50 AM

I think there is a big difference between parents who eat too much and parents who smoke. As Broph notes, you would have to physically force the child to eat fatty foods, not just give them the option. And fat is actually a good thing, in moderation. Second hand smoke is not a good thing. Ever.

Perhaps though Paul, what you're saying, is that you agree with this statement, which I included deliberately because I thought some people would agree with it:

Quote

A spokesman for the national charity Fostering Network said: "We certainly view this as a good move in terms of creating a smoke-free environment for a child, but we don't agree that a blanket ban on any smokers becoming foster carers is the right thing."

? I tend to agree with this statement. What about you, Broph? You inferred earlier that you might also agree with this statement (it would be nice to find some common ground between us all :) ) But personally, I strongly err on the side of the child. I am concerned with protecting civil liberties as well, but in this case, I believe the civil liberties of the child come first, and they should not have to grow up breathing in smoke.

Quote

I don't think smokers should be allowed to foster children. If fostering children is that important to them, they'll quit. I would hope that anyone who was serious about fostering a child would be able to make that effort.

Obese parents are an issue as well, but with that it's at least something that the children have some control over and it's something that nurses/gp can easily pick up on and hopefully deal with. Second hand smoke is just that, something that's second hand that you didn't have initially and wouldn't have to deal with if someone else wasn't around.

Well said Dani, and I agree. But as has been noted already, I think if an adult has a cigarette at the end of the garden once a month or something, or smokes down the pub every now and then, it's ok.

Quote

And children are known throughout the world to be capable of making rational choices.

This I object to. Absolutely, they are. Don't forget that these children are being fostered- they could be as old as 17. That's *plenty* old enough. You don't have to be 17 to know what you'd prefer, breathing in smoke or not breathing in smoke. I often find it grating when people do not give children the credit they deserve. Children can think for themselves. I remember quite clearly how irritated I got by this kind of attitude when *I* was a child. Don't under-estimate them, basically.

Sparky

Edited by SparkyCola, 05 November 2008 - 09:52 AM.

Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#25 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 09:52 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

For you, the overwhelming issue is protecting the children's health from smokers, however casual they might be

I don't think there's a good way to measure smoke and the harms that it causes on children.

Quote

for me the overwhelming issue is the quality of foster carers and civil liberties

There is no right to be a foster parent. Many people may apply to be foster parents, but get turned down for one reason or another. In the US, a number of people are foster parents because of the stipend they get for housing children. Smoking is a choice. That choice has consequences. If that choice results in an inability to care for children that aren't ones own, then I think that is the choice of the smoker; it's up to them if that price is too much to pay.

#26 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 09:55 AM

View PostSparkyCola, on Nov 5 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

I think there is a big difference between parents who eat too much and parents who smoke.

I never understand why this is brought up whenever smoking is discussed. There are lots of bad things that we do to ourselves, but whenever someone lashes out at smoking, someone always brings up food and obesity.

I would still love to know the numbers here, too. How many children are in the system? How many are in smoking homes? What housing alternatives do they have if they can't stay with smokers?

I have to wonder if this is almost as harmless as a ban against parents who keep tigers in their living rooms.

Edited by Broph, 05 November 2008 - 10:07 AM.


#27 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 09:55 AM

Paul, one question, though - if you think it's fair to ask. Are you a smoker?

#28 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:05 AM

* Please disregard this post - the argument is better explained in my following posts.*

Edited by Paul, 05 November 2008 - 10:13 AM.

"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#29 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:10 AM

View PostSparkyCola, on Nov 5 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

I think there is a big difference between parents who eat too much and parents who smoke. As Broph notes, you would have to physically force the child to eat fatty foods, not just give them the option. And fat is actually a good thing, in moderation. Second hand smoke is not a good thing. Ever.

If the only food that will get served in the foster care is fish and chips, then I would argue that it is the only access to food there is. So one could argue duress in those cases.

Quote

Perhaps though Paul, what you're saying, is that you agree with this statement, which I included deliberately because I thought some people would agree with it:

Quote

A spokesman for the national charity Fostering Network said: "We certainly view this as a good move in terms of creating a smoke-free environment for a child, but we don't agree that a blanket ban on any smokers becoming foster carers is the right thing."

Yes, thank you. That is all I am saying all along, though I might have been doing a bad job of expressing it.

Quote

But personally, I strongly err on the side of the child. I am concerned with protecting civil liberties as well, but in this case, I believe the civil liberties of the child come first, and they should not have to grow up breathing in smoke.

Yes, I agree. But the blanket ban would also exclude casual smokers (you know, the persons who only smoke at parties) and I do not think that that would be fair, especially if that person is a good candidate otherwise.
"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#30 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:13 AM

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

For you, the overwhelming issue is protecting the children's health from smokers, however casual they might be

I don't think there's a good way to measure smoke and the harms that it causes on children.

Absolutely there is. There have been several studies done on the subject of children and second hand smoke.

Quote

Quote

for me the overwhelming issue is the quality of foster carers and civil liberties

There is no right to be a foster parent. Many people may apply to be foster parents, but get turned down for one reason or another.

But there is the right to have a fair selection. And that is violated IMO if there is a blanket ban with no exceptions, no flexibility.

Quote

In the US, a number of people are foster parents because of the stipend they get for housing children. Smoking is a choice. That choice has consequences. If that choice results in an inability to care for children that aren't ones own, then I think that is the choice of the smoker; it's up to them if that price is too much to pay.

And with that I agree, if it can be shown that the quantities of smoke is harmful.
"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#31 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:17 AM

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

View PostSparkyCola, on Nov 5 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

I think there is a big difference between parents who eat too much and parents who smoke.

I never understand why this is brought up whenever smoking is discussed. There are lots of bad things that we do to ourselves, but whenever someone lashes out at smoking, someone always brings up food and obesity.

I would still love to know the numbers here, too. How many children are in the system? How many are in smoking homes? What housing alternatives do they have if they can't stay with smokers?

I have to wonder if this is almost as harmless as a ban against parents who keep tigers in their living rooms.

Well, I would argue that that is for the proponents of the ban to provide.


Quote

Paul, one question, though - if you think it's fair to ask. Are you a smoker?

Of course it is fair to ask. No, I have never smoked, nor have I ever been overweight and I only drink about six bottles of wine a year. In fact, this law would not affect me at all. I am merely arguing this on principle since this seems to me to be another instance of where authorites are too busy/lazy to do a lot of work and therefore refuse to do any work at all.
"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#32 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:18 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

But there is the right to have a fair selection.

I'd be very surprised actually if there was such a right, either on the govermental statutes, or on whatever rules govern the foster organisations. I think it far more likely they have a 'we reserve the right to reject anyone, at any time for any reason if we believe it's in the best interests of the child' type of statement on the books.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#33 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:21 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

Absolutely there is. There have been several studies done on the subject of children and second hand smoke.

Nothing conclusive and consistent. They all say that it's "bad", but nothing quantitative. 2 people smoke for 50 years; one gets lung cancer and dies; the other one is healthy as a horse - different number of cigarettes, different body types, different smoking methods, etc.

Quote

But there is the right to have a fair selection. And that is violated IMO if there is a blanket ban with no exceptions, no flexibility.

I'll never get picked to be on the Celtics. Is that fair selection?

Quote

And with that I agree, if it can be shown that the quantities of smoke is harmful.

OK, but you said at the beginning of your post that there have been several studies done on the subject.

#34 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:23 AM

View PostGodeskian, on Nov 5 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

But there is the right to have a fair selection.

I'd be very surprised actually if there was such a right, either on the govermental statutes, or on whatever rules govern the foster organisations. I think it far more likely they have a 'we reserve the right to reject anyone, at any time for any reason if we believe it's in the best interests of the child' type of statement on the books.

Yes. And that right there, is the right to a fair selection - to have one's case considered on the objective interest of the child. In short, a right to at least have a hearing or a ruling, however short, that says "the committee, after considering your application, has decided to decline...".

This blanket ban would prevent such candidates from even being considered at all.
"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#35 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:24 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 03:17 PM, said:

In fact, this law would not affect me at all.

Nor would it affect me.

Quote

this seems to me to be another instance of where authorites are too busy/lazy to do a lot of work and therefore refuse to do any work at all.

I don't know about that. Just because the figures aren't in the article doesn't mean that the authorities haven't done their due diligence. In fact, maybe it's the reporter(s) who has been too busy/lazy to properly report on the subject.

#36 Paul

Paul

    Heartless elitist

  • Islander
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:32 AM

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

Absolutely there is. There have been several studies done on the subject of children and second hand smoke.

Nothing conclusive and consistent. They all say that it's "bad", but nothing quantitative. 2 people smoke for 50 years; one gets lung cancer and dies; the other one is healthy as a horse - different number of cigarettes, different body types, different smoking methods, etc.

Actually, recent studies have shown that smoking cuts the life expectancy by over 10 years. Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ 2004; 328: 1519. I do not have access to that study, but I see no reason to question their findings.

I would wager it is like alcoholism - some people can take it, the majority cannot, whereas a beer here and there has no significant health effects.

Quote

Quote

But there is the right to have a fair selection. And that is violated IMO if there is a blanket ban with no exceptions, no flexibility.

I'll never get picked to be on the Celtics. Is that fair selection?

Yes, because based on your talents and a comparison to their requirements, you would not be selected on that. I have no problem if the same happens to smokers, if they can indeed show that they smoke enough to harm the child. I personally would draw the line at smoking in the house if they smoke more than two times a week.

The problem I see here is that any smoker is automatically excluded, even the people who light a cigar to celebrate something special like a graduation or the New Year. Using your example, it would be comprable to you getting excluded because you have (hypothetically) short legs before they had you even run a lap.

Quote

Quote

And with that I agree, if it can be shown that the quantities of smoke is harmful.

OK, but you said at the beginning of your post that there have been several studies done on the subject.

Yeah, that smoking is harmful. What needs to be determined is the quantity of smoking the "parents" do and then check that with regards to the studies.

EDIT:

View PostBroph, on Nov 5 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 03:17 PM, said:

In fact, this law would not affect me at all.

Nor would it affect me.

That's good.

Quote

Quote

this seems to me to be another instance of where authorites are too busy/lazy to do a lot of work and therefore refuse to do any work at all.

I don't know about that. Just because the figures aren't in the article doesn't mean that the authorities haven't done their due diligence. In fact, maybe it's the reporter(s) who has been too busy/lazy to properly report on the subject.

Well, the fact that this is a blanket ban kinda spells it out to me that they would refuse to make an individual determination.

Edited by Paul, 05 November 2008 - 10:34 AM.

"All Religions are equal and good, if only the people that practice them are honest people; and if Turks and heathens came and wanted to live here in this country, we would build them mosques and churches."
- Frederick II, King of Prussia, evil liberal™
~~~~~~
Cameron: "His wife arranged it for an anniversary present. And if you ask me, if two people really trust each other, a threesome once every seven years might actually help a marriage."
House: "Okay, I say we stop the DDX and discuss that comment."
~~~~~~
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.' No more." - Bruno Gianelli

#37 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:43 AM

Guys, you may want to consider whether you're actually benefiting your own points of view when you argue minutely over dozens of different aspects of each other's posts -- or whether you're just obscuring your main points behind nitpickery and giant walls of text.

#38 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:47 AM

View PostPaul, on Nov 5 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

Yes. And that right there, is the right to a fair selection - to have one's case considered on the objective interest of the child. In short, a right to at least have a hearing or a ruling, however short, that says "the committee, after considering your application, has decided to decline...".

This blanket ban would prevent such candidates from even being considered at all.

I disagree that 'we reserve the right to reject for any reason' constitutes a fair selection, but I'm willing to agree to disagree on the interpretation, especially as I haven't done any real research on the topic of fostering, as I imagine no one here has done any in depth research.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#39 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 10:50 AM

If I didn't know better I'd swear Broph and Paul actually agree :eh:

I think the simple question that would set this straight for me is this one:

Broph- do you believe that a blanket ban is the right thing to do? Or do you think that occasional smokers should be allowed in for consideration?

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#40 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 11:19 AM

View PostFlatlandDan, on Nov 5 2008, 08:31 AM, said:

I don't think smokers should be allowed to foster children.  If fostering children is that important to them, they'll quit.  I would hope that anyone who was serious about fostering a child would be able to make that effort.

Obese parents are an issue as well, but with that it's at least something that the children have some control over and it's something that nurses/gp can easily pick up on and hopefully deal with.  Second hand smoke is just that, something that's second hand that you didn't have initially and wouldn't have to deal with if someone else wasn't around.


Then people who have physical disabilites and then the elderly and where are you going to simply allow people who care for childs to raise them when they otherwise will get a quality institutional rasiing?

You know somewhere along the way I think the Health Police are going to push things to far.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Health, Smoking, 2008

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users