Also explain how it came into your head that the average parent is completely equipped to deal with every aspect of child-rearing just by virtue of (mostly) liking their kids.
Also explain how it came into your head that the average parent is completely equipped to deal with every aspect of child-rearing just by virtue of (mostly) liking their kids.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
TLDR; parents are generally good even if they are flawed, CPS only makes it worse and at best is marginally ineffective and at worst is subjective and rarely impartial.
Also, you haven't actually demonstrated this. You just complained that people breaking the law with kids would, in fact, be punished.
Abloo fucking hoo. I'd rather a kid see his dad go to jail for driving over the limit than be in the ensuing car wreck.
I think we'd be throwing a lot of people in jail if we actually enforced this kind of stuff absolutely. This doesn't just include driving, I'm talking about domestic abuse, verbal or otherwise.
I'm not saying that evil people shouldn't be punished but I'm saying that if justice is indeed blind then CPS isn't doing it's job nearly as well as it should be.
Also explain how it came into your head that the average parent is completely equipped to deal with every aspect of child-rearing just by virtue of (mostly) liking their kids.
I'd like to hear a solution to this problem. Is the solution to have mandatory parenting classes or something? Is the solution to step up CPS presence everywhere?
I don't think the current system works mind you. The current system basically gets minorities and poor people in trouble and doesn't deal with the privileged. I see a problem with this.
I think we'd be throwing a lot of people in jail if we actually enforced this kind of stuff absolutely. This doesn't just include driving, I'm talking about domestic abuse, verbal or otherwise.
I'm not saying that evil people shouldn't be punished but I'm saying that if justice is indeed blind then CPS isn't doing it's job nearly as well as it should be.
Actually, they're doing their job just fine because abuse isn't binary. No one's going to lose their kid for a .001 BAC or a .05 BAC. They will possibly lose them for the .08 because they're breaking the law and recklessly endangering the children.
And I already addressed your issues with the verbal and physical abuse.
All the other stuff will be a matter of degree. Verbal and physical abuse should be highly discouraged, but no one's losing their kid over seriously calling them an idiot out of frustration one day or smacking them upside the head. They'll be warned and watched more closely for a while at which point it will be discovered that, in fact, it's not a regular occurrence. And simply being able to hear them through the walls when lecturing a child isn't near good enough to get them taken away or really even warned if the child doesn't seem affected by it.
And your concern about watching was addressed too with you still not providing a solution.
So, basically, they should make sure the children are okay, but not actually check to see if they are.
If you don't want CPS observing potentially abusive parents how, exactly, do you think children should be protected from parents before they're terminally harmed?
Also explain how it came into your head that the average parent is completely equipped to deal with every aspect of child-rearing just by virtue of (mostly) liking their kids.
I'd like to hear a solution to this problem. Is the solution to have mandatory parenting classes or something? Is the solution to step up CPS presence everywhere?
I don't think the current system works mind you. The current system basically gets minorities and poor people in trouble and doesn't deal with the privileged. I see a problem with this.
Bullshit. A college degree won't get CPS off your ass for driving around intoxicated with a kid in your car.
Some people are just morons when it comes to kids. I was in Wisconson for work, and in the hotel bar. One of the maids was in the bar with one of her friends, seemingly looking to hook up with someone. Shes been drinkng for a few hours, when she gets a call from her son, oh, 10:30ish? So she goes and picks him up, and his friend. Takes them to the hotel pool, that is closed for the night, lights off, no lifeguard (Kids are like 10) and goes back to the bar. At around one o clock, shes pretty friendly with a guy at the bar, seems like their going to leave together, when I think she remembered her kids. I started heading back to the room, and she was getting them out of the pool. Not sure what happened then. Driving around drunk with 2 kids, one of them isn't even hers. But I'm sure the older one was watching the other one the whole time.
Also explain how it came into your head that the average parent is completely equipped to deal with every aspect of child-rearing just by virtue of (mostly) liking their kids.
I'd like to hear a solution to this problem. Is the solution to have mandatory parenting classes or something? Is the solution to step up CPS presence everywhere?
I don't think the current system works mind you. The current system basically gets minorities and poor people in trouble and doesn't deal with the privileged. I see a problem with this.
Bullshit. A college degree won't get CPS off your ass for driving around intoxicated with a kid in your car.
The solution is for you to report people who drive drunk with their fucking kids, genius.
Christ. The funny part is that there never will be a significant CPS presence, and it's always going to be incredibly easy to abuse your kid and hide it. But thank god there are patriots like you making sure it doesn't get any harder.
Also explain how it came into your head that the average parent is completely equipped to deal with every aspect of child-rearing just by virtue of (mostly) liking their kids.
I'd like to hear a solution to this problem. Is the solution to have mandatory parenting classes or something? Is the solution to step up CPS presence everywhere?
I don't think the current system works mind you. The current system basically gets minorities and poor people in trouble and doesn't deal with the privileged. I see a problem with this.
I'm scratching my head here trying to figure out why it's so awful to suggest that children in uneducated households may be more likely to find themselves subject to abusive parenting, and why law enforcement might be needed to protect these children. Is there really an epidemic of rich parents beating their kids while CPS looks the other way? Because if anything children in wealthier communities tend to have a much larger support network outside of their immediate family to look out for them.
If the child of a rich, educated household is being regularly exposed to abusive behavior then CPS absolutely should have a larger presence. That child is as much a fellow citizen as the parent, since when is their right to physical safety less important than their parent's right to privacy when there is a reasonable belief that the parent is breaking the law? It's not like the kid can go buy a weapon and defend him or herself. If you have reason to believe a child is being abused then you have a moral obligation to intervene on their behalf by contacting the authorities.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Also explain how it came into your head that the average parent is completely equipped to deal with every aspect of child-rearing just by virtue of (mostly) liking their kids.
I'd like to hear a solution to this problem. Is the solution to have mandatory parenting classes or something? Is the solution to step up CPS presence everywhere?
I don't think the current system works mind you. The current system basically gets minorities and poor people in trouble and doesn't deal with the privileged. I see a problem with this.
Bullshit. A college degree won't get CPS off your ass for driving around intoxicated with a kid in your car.
The solution is for you to report people who drive drunk with their fucking kids, genius.
My approach is to handle it in a more humane and personal way. Like say for example an intervention.
I don't report sick people with incurable diseases to the gestapo.
Christ. The funny part is that there never will be a significant CPS presence, and it's always going to be incredibly easy to abuse your kid and hide it. But thank god there are patriots like you making sure it doesn't get any harder.
So you advocate seriously expanding the reach of CPS then?
My approach is to handle it in a more humane and personal way. Like say for example an intervention.
Their solution to dealing with their child's sickness was to pray.
Now, it's super nice that you think you're qualified to determine what the best course of action is with child abuse. If you think this is the case I highly suggest you become a social worker.
In any case, I don't think advocating that the couple in question in the OP should be convicted of manslaughter is necessarily a whole hearted endorsement of expansion of CPS to gestapo levels.
To the greater topic, the idea that parents fundamentally know what is best for their children. Even if they are sick in the head they are mostly not malicious. However, to respond in kind with every drunk shouting match or every drive home over the legal limit is to bust these people then I consider that intrusive, possibly counterproductive and totally impractical.
TLDR; parents are generally good even if they are flawed, CPS only makes it worse and at best is marginally ineffective and at worst is subjective and rarely impartial.
Just sticking my head in to say that yes, a parent driving their child home when over the legal limit in regards to alcohol should be fucking arrested. That's why its the legal limit.
Damn right its intrusive. If you're at the point where you are driving your kids around drunk (and that's what being over the legal limit is, try telling the officer 'I know its over the .08, but come on man, I'm fine!') someone needs to be intruding.
If you have problems with the way the agency implements policy, then talk about that. But saying that 'Parents are generally good, so CPS should butt out' seems criminally stupid.
Can you explain your basis for categorically siding with the parent by default?
I think that it's the default position that a parent has the right to make decisions for their children. That right should only be impinged if they're intentionally harming their child, or not providing enough care for a child to survive in most situations.
I think that's a dangerous attitude to take, considering the levels of child abuse and neglect in this country.
To be honest, it's a fairly difficult position for me to write because of the amount of parenting I would disagree with. I would prefer a clear principle that preserves the life of a child in all situations, but I can't think of a way that this could be written that isn't either ham fisted or too open to interpretation. The basis for only requiring the bare essentials be provided, is because that is all that is absolutely necessary to get a person to adult age.
this theme of 'too hard to legislate' recurs in online discussions in myriad contexts, but I have to take issue with it. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you've ever read a bill that covers a broad topic, you'd realise that its well possible to write one in a detailed enough fashion to cover a tremendous range of possible circumstances. The damn acts can go for reams. Legal acts are also often accompanied by supporting regulations and policies that aid interpretation in novel circumstances and guide normal implementation. And behind that we have the judiciary, deciding on the stuff that hits the too-hard basket.
The legislators that write bills often aren't terribly bright (or at least aren't sufficiently schooled in how to write a good law), its true. But their ideas can be massaged by those who know better. Government regulation of parenting is primarily restricted by the fact that its political poison to do anything but demonise socially marginal parents - its nothing to do with objective inability to legislate.
Quid, not only can I not call for no reason, I'm compelled to call them. It's in fact my responsibility as a concerned citizen.
Failure to act would be Un-American. In fact not calling makes me as bad as they are. In order to purge my sin I have to report them. I'll take pictures and record the violence in the apartment next door. It's the right thing to do. For God's sakes think of the children.
If it's actually happening I would hope so. Because then you're not harassing them. You're protecting their children.
Edit: Also, you're not compelled to call them for no reason. You're compelled to call them for a reason.
I'm working under the assumption that this is happening in a lot of American households on their worst day. Assuming that everyone is reported on the day that they actually do even some of the above described then we're talking about a ton of CPS visits and incarcerating a majority of the country.
This assumption is absolutely moronic if you're assuming that litany of things you listed previously.
I know several people who have screamed at their children while intoxicated, driven while legally drunk with children in the car, applied spankings or otherwise just emotionally abused their children both under the influence or stone cold sober.
Note these are not uneducated hooligans doing this kind of crap they are upper class educated people: Doctors, Lawyers, Business people etc...
There are no class boundaries to domestic abuse. It is rad to see one of the resident republicans defend the rights of the socioeconomically privileged to act like fuckwits no matter who they damage, though. Comedy gold.
I think you're making a lot of stupid assumptions about CPS's possible actions in response to a report, incidentally. Taking the kids off to care is a last resort in any sensible set of possible options. Counselling for parents in order to help them develop coping and parenting skills is the first resort, and ironically enough, that option is far more likely to be employed if you're a doctor than if you're a janitor.
In any case, I don't think advocating that the couple in question in the OP should be convicted of manslaughter is necessarily a whole hearted endorsement of expansion of CPS to gestapo levels.
But that's just me.
Especially since in general expanding the power of CPS is about trying to protect children before damage is done, where here all we're talking about is punishing the parents after the child is dead. The two are as unrelated as unrelated can be.
There are no class boundaries to domestic abuse. It is rad to see one of the resident republicans defend the rights of the socioeconomically privileged to act like fuckwits no matter who they damage, though. Comedy gold.
Pretty sure Nash ain't a Republican, and that that's part of the problem here. I think he's a friend of Rand, if ya know what I mean. *nudge nudge wink wink*
To argue that this shit is legal is saying that any crazy can organize a death cult and start murdering people in the name of their religion and get away with it.
Bad, bad precedent.
Not really. They didn't murder their child. They neglected it is the most you could say. Murder requires intent, the only intent the y had was helping their daughter. Hence the praying. In their eyes, they were helping her the way they thought would work best, by praying.
How about a hypothetical couple who have religious reasons to believe that God will feed their child? If they refuse to feed their infant and it dies, should they not be charged there either?
I believe that God will protect people from me stabbing them and that stabbing people is actually beneficial. BRB. I'm going to spread the joy by stabbing hobos.
Okay, I'm back. God let me down. Fuck. But, I guess I'm immune from prosecution since I really really believed in what I was doing and that it was a good thing.
I believe that God will protect people from me stabbing them and that stabbing people is actually beneficial. BRB. I'm going to spread the joy by stabbing hobos.
Okay, I'm back. God let me down. Fuck. But, I guess I'm immune from prosecution since I really really believed in what I was doing and that it was a good thing.
Were you treating the hobos for illnesses? Daniel didn't go punching the lions in their faces and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego didn't go tap dancing into the furnace. I think the magic stuff happens when you're thrown into a tough situation.
I believe that God will protect people from me stabbing them and that stabbing people is actually beneficial. BRB. I'm going to spread the joy by stabbing hobos.
Okay, I'm back. God let me down. Fuck. But, I guess I'm immune from prosecution since I really really believed in what I was doing and that it was a good thing.
Were you treating the hobos for illnesses? Daniel didn't go punching the lions in their faces and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego didn't go tap dancing into the furnace. I think the magic stuff happens when you're thrown into a tough situation.
It's not like the Jews were invaded by the Hittites.
To argue that this shit is legal is saying that any crazy can organize a death cult and start murdering people in the name of their religion and get away with it.
Bad, bad precedent.
Not really. They didn't murder their child. They neglected it is the most you could say. Murder requires intent, the only intent the y had was helping their daughter. Hence the praying. In their eyes, they were helping her the way they thought would work best, by praying.
How about a hypothetical couple who have religious reasons to believe that God will feed their child? If they refuse to feed their infant and it dies, should they not be charged there either?
I didn't murder the members of my cult, I just neglected to tell them the kool-aid was poisoned. They murdered themselves, all you can call me is negligent. Not a murderer.
A person's right to throw a punch ends where another person's face begins. In much the same way, a person's right to worship Slorgoth the Tormentor ends where another person's right to NOT be murdered as a sacrificial rite to Slorgoth begins.
For the CPS to have the ability to act like a Gestapo, they would need a lot more funding then they are currently getting. Its a truism that they are very underfunded and have problems dealing with their real caseloads, let alone go around kidnaping kids from their parents willy nilly.
There is more evidence of the CPS missing real cases of child abuse, then of them takeing kids from their parents without cause.
Plus you take a kid from their parents? Congratulations you got a court date. Every case where the CPS steps in, they have to defend their decision in a court of law. Its called accountability, something the Gestapo never had.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I still can't get over "Responding to any or every time a parent drives their kids home over the legal limit is intrusive"
o_O
The legal limit in Ohio is reached after about 1.5 drinks in a grown man of average tolerance. While there is no breathlizer record to prove either way, knowing how little it takes to reach the legal limit I am pretty sure that my dad drove me home over the legal limit dozens of times before I turned 18. I can also say with certainty that I never saw my dad drunk until his second wedding reception, at which point I was 21. Is my dad sufficiently abusive to justify government intervention?
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I still can't get over "Responding to any or every time a parent drives their kids home over the legal limit is intrusive"
o_O
The legal limit in Ohio is reached after about 1.5 drinks in a grown man of average tolerance. While there is no breathlizer record to prove either way, knowing how little it takes to reach the legal limit I am pretty sure that my dad drove me home over the legal limit dozens of times before I turned 18. I can also say with certainty that I never saw my dad drunk until his second wedding reception, at which point I was 21. Is my dad sufficiently abusive to justify government intervention?
Probably. I'm not familiar with the laws or your dad, but if he was driving over the limit then just because he got lucky doesn't mean he's not breaking the law.
I still can't get over "Responding to any or every time a parent drives their kids home over the legal limit is intrusive"
o_O
The legal limit in Ohio is reached after about 1.5 drinks in a grown man of average tolerance. While there is no breathlizer record to prove either way, knowing how little it takes to reach the legal limit I am pretty sure that my dad drove me home over the legal limit dozens of times before I turned 18. I can also say with certainty that I never saw my dad drunk until his second wedding reception, at which point I was 21. Is my dad sufficiently abusive to justify government intervention?
Probably. I'm not familiar with the laws or your dad, but if he was driving over the limit then just because he got lucky doesn't mean he's not breaking the law.
Where does luck play in?
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I still can't get over "Responding to any or every time a parent drives their kids home over the legal limit is intrusive"
o_O
The legal limit in Ohio is reached after about 1.5 drinks in a grown man of average tolerance. While there is no breathlizer record to prove either way, knowing how little it takes to reach the legal limit I am pretty sure that my dad drove me home over the legal limit dozens of times before I turned 18. I can also say with certainty that I never saw my dad drunk until his second wedding reception, at which point I was 21. Is my dad sufficiently abusive to justify government intervention?
Probably. I'm not familiar with the laws or your dad, but if he was driving over the limit then just because he got lucky doesn't mean he's not breaking the law.
I still can't get over "Responding to any or every time a parent drives their kids home over the legal limit is intrusive"
o_O
The legal limit in Ohio is reached after about 1.5 drinks in a grown man of average tolerance. While there is no breathlizer record to prove either way, knowing how little it takes to reach the legal limit I am pretty sure that my dad drove me home over the legal limit dozens of times before I turned 18. I can also say with certainty that I never saw my dad drunk until his second wedding reception, at which point I was 21. Is my dad sufficiently abusive to justify government intervention?
Probably. I'm not familiar with the laws or your dad, but if he was driving over the limit then just because he got lucky doesn't mean he's not breaking the law.
Where does luck play in?
Not getting pulled over.
How is that luck? You don't get pulled over unless you give people a reason to pull you over. Like by driving drunk.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I still can't get over "Responding to any or every time a parent drives their kids home over the legal limit is intrusive"
o_O
The legal limit in Ohio is reached after about 1.5 drinks in a grown man of average tolerance. While there is no breathlizer record to prove either way, knowing how little it takes to reach the legal limit I am pretty sure that my dad drove me home over the legal limit dozens of times before I turned 18. I can also say with certainty that I never saw my dad drunk until his second wedding reception, at which point I was 21. Is my dad sufficiently abusive to justify government intervention?
Probably. I'm not familiar with the laws or your dad, but if he was driving over the limit then just because he got lucky doesn't mean he's not breaking the law.
Where does luck play in?
Not getting pulled over.
How is that luck? You don't get pulled over unless you give people a reason to pull you over. Like by driving drunk.
Driving drunk isn't the only thing that'll get you pulled over. Whether or not your dad was effectively intoxicated, nobody's a perfect driver all the time. Not to mention high risk times like certain holidays or prom night when police will pull normal people over just because there's a high probability of a lot of people being drunk.
Besides, whether or not he was going to get caught isn't the issue. If someone drives while over the limit, or runs a red light, or breaks a similar law put in place for safety, it doesn't matter if they didn't actually get in an accident. Someone might be convinced that they're perfectly able to drive after drinking, just as they might be convinced that there aren't any other cars near the intersection, so why does it matter if they break the law or not? Now their behavior is based on their judgment, not the law. Their judgment might be sound, like your dad's. Or their judgment might be batshit crazy, like these faith-healing parents. The point is, when something bad happens as a result of them following their judgment instead of the law, they're at fault. If nothing bad happens (this time), cool, the kid survives and your dad made it home OK. But the law can't afford to trust everyone's judgment all the time.
So now you're advocating that CPS get involved every time a parent fails to signal or gets a speeding ticked with their kid in the car?
That's ridiculous.
What he's saying is that CPS shouldn't be expected to trust bad parents' judgements about the quality of their parenting, because doing so goes against the reason for that organization to exist.
So now you're advocating that CPS get involved every time a parent fails to signal or gets a speeding ticked with their kid in the car?
That's ridiculous.
What he's saying is that CPS shouldn't be expected to trust bad parents' judgements about the quality of their parenting, because doing so goes against the reason for that organization to exist.
Sure, but what does that have to do with traffic violations? I mean if anything by pointing out that an accident could happen randomly at any time he's dropped the bar to "alert CPS when parents drive their kids in cars ever".
Look, the fact that your sainted pops did it to no ill effect doesn't mean the general statement of "you shouldn't drive when fucking drunk with your fucking kid in the car fuck" is not a valid one. You put your child at more of a risk because you felt like doing something convenient but also reasonably dangerous and illegal.
So now you're advocating that CPS get involved every time a parent fails to signal or gets a speeding ticked with their kid in the car?
That's ridiculous.
What he's saying is that CPS shouldn't be expected to trust bad parents' judgements about the quality of their parenting, because doing so goes against the reason for that organization to exist.
Sure, but what does that have to do with traffic violations? I mean if anything by pointing out that an accident could happen randomly at any time he's dropped the bar to "alert CPS when parents drive their kids in cars ever".
I'm pretty sure (and Kal can correct me here if I'm wrong) that the drunk driving is just an allegory for poor parenting practices at this point.
Some people have a higher tolerance and may be able to make it back home with their kids safe after a few drinks (i.e.; their questionable parenting practices don't, in fact, overtly harm the child), but others aren't going to be able to no matter how much they might think they could. As such, we shouldn't be trusting the people who are potentially risky drivers to self-police here; we need systems in place to protect others from their actions.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited December 2008
No, I said that when people act on their own judgment in opposition to laws designed to maximize safety, the risk of people getting hurt goes up. You brought up your dad, who drives while over the legal limit because he judges himself to be a competent driver at that level. Whether or not he is a competent driver at that level doesn't matter to the law - by driving while over the limit, he breaks the law whether or not people get hurt as a result.
The traffic violation was another example of this - if someone runs a red light because they don't think there are any cars nearby, they still broke the law whether or not they got into an accident because they trusted their own judgment over the law. By going with their judgment, they raised the chances of there being an accident, whether or not one actually happened.
The faith-healer parents are a third example. Their judgment was that praying over the kid would make him better, when they should have gone to a doctor. Just like the red-light-runner, they ignore the law in favor of their own judgment. But the law can't distuinguish between their crappy judgment and your dad's good judgment - in both cases, the law was ignored and the risk of harm went up.
Criminal negligence has a real definition people. Theres tons of case law for cases like this and other situations. it may vary depending on state laws and circumstances. But it is real.
Just because it exists doesn't mean parents have to be perfect. It means they have to parent within those legal constraints or face legal consequences.
So drop the slippery slope arguments they're ridiculous.
Posts
Umm... the market?
That's because you're a Nazi.
I think we'd be throwing a lot of people in jail if we actually enforced this kind of stuff absolutely. This doesn't just include driving, I'm talking about domestic abuse, verbal or otherwise.
I'm not saying that evil people shouldn't be punished but I'm saying that if justice is indeed blind then CPS isn't doing it's job nearly as well as it should be.
I'd like to hear a solution to this problem. Is the solution to have mandatory parenting classes or something? Is the solution to step up CPS presence everywhere?
I don't think the current system works mind you. The current system basically gets minorities and poor people in trouble and doesn't deal with the privileged. I see a problem with this.
And I already addressed your issues with the verbal and physical abuse.
And your concern about watching was addressed too with you still not providing a solution.
If you don't want CPS observing potentially abusive parents how, exactly, do you think children should be protected from parents before they're terminally harmed?
The solution is for you to report people who drive drunk with their fucking kids, genius.
Christ. The funny part is that there never will be a significant CPS presence, and it's always going to be incredibly easy to abuse your kid and hide it. But thank god there are patriots like you making sure it doesn't get any harder.
I'm scratching my head here trying to figure out why it's so awful to suggest that children in uneducated households may be more likely to find themselves subject to abusive parenting, and why law enforcement might be needed to protect these children. Is there really an epidemic of rich parents beating their kids while CPS looks the other way? Because if anything children in wealthier communities tend to have a much larger support network outside of their immediate family to look out for them.
If the child of a rich, educated household is being regularly exposed to abusive behavior then CPS absolutely should have a larger presence. That child is as much a fellow citizen as the parent, since when is their right to physical safety less important than their parent's right to privacy when there is a reasonable belief that the parent is breaking the law? It's not like the kid can go buy a weapon and defend him or herself. If you have reason to believe a child is being abused then you have a moral obligation to intervene on their behalf by contacting the authorities.
My approach is to handle it in a more humane and personal way. Like say for example an intervention.
I don't report sick people with incurable diseases to the gestapo.
So you advocate seriously expanding the reach of CPS then?
The rumors of CPS being child-snatching goosesteppers are greatly exaggerated.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Now, it's super nice that you think you're qualified to determine what the best course of action is with child abuse. If you think this is the case I highly suggest you become a social worker.
Oh yeah. Nash.
In any case, I don't think advocating that the couple in question in the OP should be convicted of manslaughter is necessarily a whole hearted endorsement of expansion of CPS to gestapo levels.
But that's just me.
Just sticking my head in to say that yes, a parent driving their child home when over the legal limit in regards to alcohol should be fucking arrested. That's why its the legal limit.
Damn right its intrusive. If you're at the point where you are driving your kids around drunk (and that's what being over the legal limit is, try telling the officer 'I know its over the .08, but come on man, I'm fine!') someone needs to be intruding.
If you have problems with the way the agency implements policy, then talk about that. But saying that 'Parents are generally good, so CPS should butt out' seems criminally stupid.
this theme of 'too hard to legislate' recurs in online discussions in myriad contexts, but I have to take issue with it. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you've ever read a bill that covers a broad topic, you'd realise that its well possible to write one in a detailed enough fashion to cover a tremendous range of possible circumstances. The damn acts can go for reams. Legal acts are also often accompanied by supporting regulations and policies that aid interpretation in novel circumstances and guide normal implementation. And behind that we have the judiciary, deciding on the stuff that hits the too-hard basket.
The legislators that write bills often aren't terribly bright (or at least aren't sufficiently schooled in how to write a good law), its true. But their ideas can be massaged by those who know better. Government regulation of parenting is primarily restricted by the fact that its political poison to do anything but demonise socially marginal parents - its nothing to do with objective inability to legislate.
There are no class boundaries to domestic abuse. It is rad to see one of the resident republicans defend the rights of the socioeconomically privileged to act like fuckwits no matter who they damage, though. Comedy gold.
I think you're making a lot of stupid assumptions about CPS's possible actions in response to a report, incidentally. Taking the kids off to care is a last resort in any sensible set of possible options. Counselling for parents in order to help them develop coping and parenting skills is the first resort, and ironically enough, that option is far more likely to be employed if you're a doctor than if you're a janitor.
Especially since in general expanding the power of CPS is about trying to protect children before damage is done, where here all we're talking about is punishing the parents after the child is dead. The two are as unrelated as unrelated can be.
Pretty sure Nash ain't a Republican, and that that's part of the problem here. I think he's a friend of Rand, if ya know what I mean. *nudge nudge wink wink*
How about a hypothetical couple who have religious reasons to believe that God will feed their child? If they refuse to feed their infant and it dies, should they not be charged there either?
Okay, I'm back. God let me down. Fuck. But, I guess I'm immune from prosecution since I really really believed in what I was doing and that it was a good thing.
Were you treating the hobos for illnesses? Daniel didn't go punching the lions in their faces and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego didn't go tap dancing into the furnace. I think the magic stuff happens when you're thrown into a tough situation.
It's not like the Jews were invaded by the Hittites.
I didn't murder the members of my cult, I just neglected to tell them the kool-aid was poisoned. They murdered themselves, all you can call me is negligent. Not a murderer.
There is more evidence of the CPS missing real cases of child abuse, then of them takeing kids from their parents without cause.
Plus you take a kid from their parents? Congratulations you got a court date. Every case where the CPS steps in, they have to defend their decision in a court of law. Its called accountability, something the Gestapo never had.
o_O
The legal limit in Ohio is reached after about 1.5 drinks in a grown man of average tolerance. While there is no breathlizer record to prove either way, knowing how little it takes to reach the legal limit I am pretty sure that my dad drove me home over the legal limit dozens of times before I turned 18. I can also say with certainty that I never saw my dad drunk until his second wedding reception, at which point I was 21. Is my dad sufficiently abusive to justify government intervention?
Probably. I'm not familiar with the laws or your dad, but if he was driving over the limit then just because he got lucky doesn't mean he's not breaking the law.
Where does luck play in?
Not getting pulled over.
How is that luck? You don't get pulled over unless you give people a reason to pull you over. Like by driving drunk.
Driving drunk isn't the only thing that'll get you pulled over. Whether or not your dad was effectively intoxicated, nobody's a perfect driver all the time. Not to mention high risk times like certain holidays or prom night when police will pull normal people over just because there's a high probability of a lot of people being drunk.
Besides, whether or not he was going to get caught isn't the issue. If someone drives while over the limit, or runs a red light, or breaks a similar law put in place for safety, it doesn't matter if they didn't actually get in an accident. Someone might be convinced that they're perfectly able to drive after drinking, just as they might be convinced that there aren't any other cars near the intersection, so why does it matter if they break the law or not? Now their behavior is based on their judgment, not the law. Their judgment might be sound, like your dad's. Or their judgment might be batshit crazy, like these faith-healing parents. The point is, when something bad happens as a result of them following their judgment instead of the law, they're at fault. If nothing bad happens (this time), cool, the kid survives and your dad made it home OK. But the law can't afford to trust everyone's judgment all the time.
What he's saying is that CPS shouldn't be expected to trust bad parents' judgements about the quality of their parenting, because doing so goes against the reason for that organization to exist.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Sure, but what does that have to do with traffic violations? I mean if anything by pointing out that an accident could happen randomly at any time he's dropped the bar to "alert CPS when parents drive their kids in cars ever".
Some people have a higher tolerance and may be able to make it back home with their kids safe after a few drinks (i.e.; their questionable parenting practices don't, in fact, overtly harm the child), but others aren't going to be able to no matter how much they might think they could. As such, we shouldn't be trusting the people who are potentially risky drivers to self-police here; we need systems in place to protect others from their actions.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The traffic violation was another example of this - if someone runs a red light because they don't think there are any cars nearby, they still broke the law whether or not they got into an accident because they trusted their own judgment over the law. By going with their judgment, they raised the chances of there being an accident, whether or not one actually happened.
The faith-healer parents are a third example. Their judgment was that praying over the kid would make him better, when they should have gone to a doctor. Just like the red-light-runner, they ignore the law in favor of their own judgment. But the law can't distuinguish between their crappy judgment and your dad's good judgment - in both cases, the law was ignored and the risk of harm went up.
Edit: That "No" is responding to VC, not Optimus.
Just because it exists doesn't mean parents have to be perfect. It means they have to parent within those legal constraints or face legal consequences.
So drop the slippery slope arguments they're ridiculous.