1) I encourage questioning such laws and examining why they were passed.
2) That is the law in any state I have been to (for restaurant workers, hospital workers, etc.), specifically to prevent the spread of disease.
Anti-vaccination movement is dealt a loss in court.
- Thread starter Siro
- Start date
1) I encourage questioning such laws and examining why they were passed.
2) That is the law in any state I have been to (for restaurant workers, hospital workers, etc.), specifically to prevent the spread of disease.
If the 1% was uniform, perhaps. However, the reality is that pockets on non-immunization develop, and in some communities the rates have fallen to less than 80%.
Which communicable diseases do you think result from eating less than the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables in a child with sufficient calories?
However, if you think I'm opposed to people calling the DCFS when they see a malnourished child, rest assured I am not. I am always fully cooperative when they come to visit. They have all been very pleasant, and genuinely interested in my kid's welfare. Why should I have a problem with that?
Becasue if they do not liek something that you do then can use that as ground to take away your children. They believe that they know better than the public what is best for kids. In some cases they are right but in some cases they most certainly are not.
If your child is malnourished there immune system suffers. That leaves them at a higher risk to a number of illnesses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#Effects
I'm fairly sure that they don't take away kids on a whim. There are specific standards in place (even though many of them are somewhat subjective, like how strong a smell of cat urine is).
I know and agree that comminicable diesease like tuberculosis are more easily spread to children with calorie malnourishment. I asked specifically about which diseases are spread more easily by kids that don't eat the recommended about of fruits and vegetables, even though they have sufficient calories? For example, scurvy is not communicable.
So if it is not communicable then you do not have to worry about scurvey from non vaccinated kids.
As for the highlighted word...bingo.
Not all standards can be quantified, so you are justified in fear-mongering? I will politely disagree, if for no other reason than taking someone's kids away is a *huge* paperwork headache for DCFS workers.
Yes it is a huge headache. I am not fear mongering. I just do not accept that it is left open to interpretation of a worker.
The first quote, with it s appraisal of such actions about being what a social worker likes or dislikes, is fear mongering. If you agree there are standards in place (even subjective ones), then it is not about social workers liking or disliking what you do (although I certainly acknowledge that their like or dislike of you can affect how they interpret other standards).
No it most certainly was not. It is reality. Or do you really want to stand on the stance that things that are subjective (as you said) are not affected by a persons mood, how they like or related to you, their experiences and how they viewed the world.
For example look how you and I see the exact same events. DCFS workers are human just like everyone else. You get one that is OCD and she goes into a house that is not cleanto her standards and she will be much more critical of it than a worker that is not OCD about cleanliness.
Has nothing to do with fear, that is the simple reality of human nature. I do enjoy your accusations of fear mongering though. At least I wasn't a racist this time haha.
Honestly, that first paragraph read as if you didn't read my whole post, in particular the part in the second parentheses.
I would agree that when DCFS workers are new, especially, those that are OCD may tend to over-report. However, they also get reviewed, and their reports have to be detailed. It's not just "the house was dirty"; it includes things like "there was dried fecal matter in four rooms in which the kids play" or "there was a strong urine smell in the kids bedroom" or "I saw fleas in the living room".
By contrast, when you offer something so generalized and unqualified as "Becasue if they do not like something that you do then can use that as ground to take away your children.", you include so many things that they can not do, legally. No matter how religious a caseworker is, they can't take my kids away because I'm an atheist. They can't take them away based on having a specific bedtime, or having books on the floor instead of shelves, or because I discipline them in a specific fashion (as long as I don't leave bruises), or any number of other things. There are specific criteria that they look for. I agree it's a shame that they can't be as objective as "y ppm of urea and ammonia" in the atmosphere instead of "strong smell of urine", but in then the standards themsevles would still be subjective ("Why y ppm instead of 2y ppm?").
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
But in any event, the state is correct.
I don't remember mentioning employment enforcement, but maybe I'm mistaken ;-)
Like laws like that one have a chance of being enforced anyway, it may as well just be a "recommendation".
Which is exactly what immunizations should be, a recommendation.
Oh BTW, I can't believe you would actually let CPS into your house.
Yes One Brow, it is legal to tell them to **** off.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
They get off on the power alone, just like most other power hungry individuals.
You have not proven your stances ont his issue anymore than I have. So your stances are no more valid than mine. We simply have differing views.
I believe I can effectively control my own life. If I want to marry a man, smoke weed, feed my kids cheetos and marshmallows, not wear a helmet when I ride a motorcycle, go live as a hermit off the grid in the mountains, home school, be a vegan...I have that right.
I am not for an archaic society but I am for getting out of peoples personal business. You can choose for yourself how you should live better than I, or society, could ever choose for you.
This is a stupid generalization. God forbid they have a desire to help kids or maybe it is just simply a job to them.
Nope power hungry. All pastors/bishops/imams...are holier than thou, all cops are bullies, all teachers think they are smarter than evryone else, all conspiracy theorists think they are the only ones with the truth (that one is for you lol)...jesus...
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Here you go with another use of the word "stupid" lol.
There's some that have a desire to help kids, but you know as well as I do that they are trained this way.
Just like cops are trained that everyone is a bad and a terrorist.
Here's a cute little FEMA training video from 2001 pointing out that our founding fathers were terrorists.
[video=youtube_share;ZPg9MdN9Gio]https://youtu.be/ZPg9MdN9Gio
Do you seriously believe this kind of training doesn't happen to this day, in all parts of the federal government?
Do you really belive that every state and federal employee is out to get you? Cops are trained to take precautions so that some nut job doesn't harm them. As they should be.
Let's just say I'm unlikely to buy into the propositon that the State is incorrect based on your say-so. I fully acknowledge laws get outdated or become pointless.
You didn't exclude it, either.
Why wouldn't I?
Why would I?
You say this based on how many personal discussions you have had directly with caseworkers? So far, not one I have talked to has been a power-hungry individual. Quite frankly, if I were a power-hungry individual, I could find much better jobs, with much less education reqjuired, to indulge that. I've worked with more power-hungry fast-food managers than power-hungry caseworkers.
By "generalized and unqualified", I did not mean you had no proof. I understood all along you were talking about your individual experiences (as I am). I think I explained what I meant fairly well, but just to be clear: claiming that caseworkers regularly can/would/do take children out of homes on some whim is wildly divergent from reality, and that this particular divergence operates in a fashion to strike at the fears of parents. Hence, it is fear-mongering.