I don't see why it wouldn't be. The PC crowd is doing everything in it's power to stigmatize smokers....The next logical step, in their warped way of thinking, will be to eliminate any chance of reproducing. Cause in their minds, children of smokers will become smokers, so better just to not let any be born.
There's a lot wrong with this statement. A LOT. I can't guarantee I'll go through it methodically either...
First of all, this has nothing to do with setting an example, and that's a major place you're going wrong. Secondhand smoke isn't a bad example, it's PHYSICALLY HARMFUL to a child. It has ZERO, note, ZERO to do with a child possibly becoming a smoker. I can't tell you just how much I think it has absolutely *nothing* to do with that, whatsoever. I think I've made my point on that one....
Now. Onto the "PC" crowd's *omgwarped* attempts to protect children from serious lung damage (eeevil eevil people...). Obviously the use of hyperbole or logic is going to be dangerous here, and it's almost certain to get misinterpreted no matter how many disclaimers are on it. But I'll try anyway. Smokers are not drunks. I can't state it any more plainly than that. If you choose to interpret what follows as anything else, that's your own problem. It really is.
Your argument is absurd, sorry Lil. I'll show you why, by showing that the logic you use, can be applied to a situation which is *patently absurd*.
The News: They're stopping drunks from fostering children.
Lil: What?! What the hell's next- stopping drunks from HAVING children?!
LotS: Well that's the logical next step to these warped people.
How ridiculous is that argument? Utterly.
And I don't wanna HEAR the "b-but you're comparing smokers to drunks." - re-read until you understand that IS NOT what I'm doing by any stretch. I'm using your logic in a different situation and showing that it's clearly not true. If you can't use it above- you can't use it with smokers either.
So no, LotS, it is NOT the next logical step in my "warped" mind. Children with natural parents face luck of the draw. They might get great parents, they might get crappy parents. But children in orphanages- they can be protected from that. They have carers who can say "Actually, no. This child is going to have parents who meet a suitable standard.". What's wrong with that? If you have a chance to protect a child from that, why wouldn't you? Crappy parents are better than no parents is NOT a good argument.
Drunks don't meet that standard. Where's your indignation? Come on. I want to see you defending the civil rights of poor alcoholics- who MADE A CHOICE to drink, just as smokers make a choice to smoke, and now want to inflict harm on children, and can't take it when someone tells them they have to change first. They have another choice. Smoke, or child. Alcohol, or child. Anything harmful to a child, OR child. You can't have it both ways. Choose. The children made a choice too. Their health, or a new home (which may or may not turn out well for them. The alternative is not the street. Stop with that strawman already. It's the orphanage, or another foster home.). You're disgusted with them for prioritising their health. For children, I'm impressed that they understand how important their health is. Good on them.
I've already said I'm not for a blanket ban. If you try to make my views on this black and white- I don't wanna hear it. If you start Godwinising or Orwellising or using excessive rhetoric or strawmen - I don't wanna hear it. And you probably won't get a response from me if you do those things. I really haven't any time for such tactics. So debate, I know full well you have something interesting and thoughtful to contribute here, you always do, only so far you've let outrage get the better of you. But I'm not a warped freak, and that's something you have to deal with before you can debate with me.