I don’t fuckin know. I don’t work in child welfare, so I have no idea whether that’s reasonable. You don’t work in child welfare either, so I’m not sure you know. And you don’t know whether you work in the same state as the person who posted that.
But if as a public defender you saw a fair number of cases where parents were jailed for shoplifting, that’s a decent thing to tell us.
What’s stupid as hell is to come at us with:
No: they didn’t say they’d seen numerous shoplifters jailed. That’s not remotely what the post said. And pretending it said that, and then talking about Ooh, what a coincidence it is, is some next-level bullshit.
But in fairness, here, Bricker actually is arguing against the repugnant policy, instead of looking for gotchas and pedantic corrections made with maximum snark. Notice the difference in tone when he’s addressing someone who wants to keep locking children up, instead of addressing someone who is just sharing their experience at their workplace:
It’s true that I didn’t work in child welfare, but I worked WITH child welfare folks on a not infrequent basis, precisely because criminal charges often triggered the involvement of child welfare because an incarcerated parent could not care for children.
So I saw that dynamic play out frequently.
“I have worked in child welfare for 23 years and have never seen a parent placed in jail for shoplifting.”
What reasonable inferences may be drawn from that declaration?
The writer might have, I suppose, been listing things he had literally never watched – he might have meant to convey that while he was aware of cases of jailed parents, he had never personally witnessed a parent being placed into a physical jail cell. That inference would mean that the declaration was technically correct, but I don’t regard it as a reasonable inference.
So what reasonable inferences might be drawn?
In my view, the most reasonable inference is that the writer means to convey is that a parent being jailed for shoplifting is a vanishingly rare occurrence.
Not at all. The reasonable inference is that they never saw it in their capacity working in child welfare. There are some possibilities here:
Anyone being jailed for shoplifting is a vanishingly rare occurrence in their jurisdiction.
The crime of theft from a store that’s serious enough to warrant jail time is called something else (less likely, but I’ll include it).
When someone is jailed for shoplifting, child welfare doesn’t get called in their jurisdiction absent aggravating factors (contrary to other folks’ suggestion that committing a crime in the presence of a minor is child abuse that gets child welfare called in).
In their experience, folks are able to make alternate arrangements for childcare in the case of the sort of short-term jail-time involved in a shoplifting case.
Magically people stop shoplifting when they become parents.
I dunno. Neither do you. Which is why clarifying questions are appropriate. Going to the stupidest interpretation is not appropriate.
Your complete inability to parse other folks’ posts remains undiminished. You can live with that, and so can I!
I have no idea whether that poster’s anecdote is truthful or not. I was just reiterating the explanation. It’s certainly seems likely that a person working for CPS would find out about far fewer parents arrested for shoplifting than a public defender. But, I have no way to know whether that person’s actual experience is really zero or just very few or just a “higher truth”, if you know what I mean.
So far, I’m getting mostly displays of ignorance of basic statistical analysis, i.e. broad claims about a population of 57000+ (which oddly got inflated to 59000 in one response, which I assume is based on the presumption that 2000 posts in my name were made by illegal immigrants), and no indication that a properly randomized sample of a good size was taken, which I calculate to be around 1500 across the entire history, i.e. dating back to November of 2000.
The reference to a “pompous streak” is interesting, though, because (during a time when I was seeking validation) I once found a reference to myself at the Giraffe boards and someone had thought I was being extremely hilarious when I said (on this board) that I used a life-size plaster bust of my head to shape my berets.
I actually have such a bust and I actually do use to shape my berets, but it honestly hadn’t occurred to me how pretentious that sounded and in hindsight, I guess it kinda does, though the reality is actually pretty banal and the details boring.
Anyway, Bricker… gee, I dunno… how about that guy…
No, Bryan, you’re just a tiresome, unfunny ass. Prolifically tiresome and unfunny, but still just an ass. Tens of thousands of your DOA one-liners attest to that.
I think it more likely he’s that he’s a fan of Trump-style exaggeration. It’s not enough that he finds me unfunny, he has to describe me as consistently and deeply unfunny (bigly unfunny, even) over a period of 15+ years.
And now he can’t back down so he’ll just keep repeating the claim, possibly enhancing it here and there (I expect sooner or later he’ll say I’ve never written anything funny, as opposed to just implying it), until something else grabs his attention.
This is the America created by the politics of Brickerdom! Be afraid!
Flattery totally works on me, as I no longer have any standards. Vinny, however, is younger and better looking, so its strictly a “dinner and a show” minimum.
You posted: “Other Posters: Why are you obsessed with legalities when X is morally wrong?”
I showed an example of that. Not sure why that was unclear to you.
Unless Bricker thinks all majority opinions of the supreme court are correct interpretations of law (which I seriously doubt) then his legal analysis and defense of probably the most reviled supreme court decision in history is to what purpose?
Odd that you quoted only the first sentence, and left off the explanation. Here it is again, underlined, as it was when I first posted it:
And, as I said in that same post, I did not say Bricker never does what others have been accusing him of. I said he usually doesn’t. So, even if you were right (which I don’t think you were), giving one anecdote does nothing to disprove my assertion.
I can’t make it any more clear than that. If you don’t understand, then I’ll just agree to disagree with you. You can do whatever you wish. My suggestion would be look out for instances of this going forward, and if you really want to engage with me on it, PM me and we can discuss it here or in the thread in question.
It proves he does it. You only need one. I am willing to bet I could find more in almost 20 years of posts. If you are willing to bet on it I’ll have a go.
For the point that “most vile,” is not legal analysis.
The Constitution permitted slavery, essentially explictly. That’s vile. The Court recognized that slavery was constitutional more than once. That’s vile.
But the question is: was the Dred Scott decision LEGALLY wrong, not “Was the Dred Scott decision ‘vile?’”
