DescentBB

Came across this story which is every parents nightmare and just goes to show who really owns your child. Condensed version, parents have 5 month old diagnosed with a heart murmer, take child for 2nd opinion, 1st hospital where original diagnosis made calls child protective service, police come and take child with no warrent, full details at this vid link:



Now I know that slick thinks all cops are little angels but the manner in which they gain access to house shows what kind of thugs they can be. Also the vid shows that if you piss off the wrong people your child can be taken away for no real reason. Afterwards you are then treated like a severe child abuser just to cover for the mistakes made. Hopefully the lawyer is good enough that he gets the hospital/child protective services/police dept to pay out big damages. Welcome to the Socialist States of America.

it's Fox News, yet again, with an overblown example.....BUT, as I said before, in most states, and generally in a case of overreaction to historical lapses, Child Protective Services(or Children and Youth, or Child Welfare Service, or whatever local agency name) has MASSIVE freedom to take children from their homes and parents. All, ostensibly, in the 'interests' of the welfare of the child(ren). I am of the opinion that such power is overdone, but what ISN'T at work, whatsoever, is some sort of police overreach. In all cases of which I've heard, the police merely execute an order from the agency. It isn't like they act alone, or overreach their own authority or responsibility.

I'm sorry Slick but entering a home without a warrant is still against the law or do you believe that cops are exempt from the law? And what does Fox news have to do with what happened? They fabricate some lies like say how Harry Reid promoted a false tale on Romney being responsible for a womans death and the liberal news and bloggers running with it?

woodchip wrote:I'm sorry Slick but entering a home without a warrant is still against the law or do you believe that cops are exempt from the law?

sorry, but an order from Children and Youth actually outranks a mere warrant.

And what does Fox news have to do with what happened?

because your masters at Faux News want you to remained perpetually scared of assorted 'liberal' boogeymen, so they tend to only tell you part of the story. You see, keeping you scared means a clear path for the agenda of the folks paying the bills for Fox.

They fabricate some lies like say how Harry Reid promoted a false tale on Romney being responsible for a womans death and the liberal news and bloggers running with it?

sort of similar, yes.....

That story is actually kind of mild compared to the horror stories I have heard about DYFS.

The most embarrassing thing about this is...those poor people may have come to this country to escape that sort of treatment.

Spidey is right, I've heard a number of similar stories about CPS overstepping as well. The thing that seems to have launched this story into the mainstream consciousness is the video.

---------------

Here's something I'd ask:

Given that we know that errors will happen, would you rather have Child Protective Services:

• Be aggressive with suspected abuse/neglect (and possibly overstep their authority)?
• Be cautious with suspected abuse/neglect (and possibly miss chances to protect)?

While I hate the idea of the former, the latter may actually be the worse of the two. Unlike the parents in this case (who will eventually hopefully get some justice), it's often too late for cases that CPS misses.

Well slick, just where was the abuse? If there was none and DCPS didn't first verify it then they and the police acted like the Gestapo and nothing less. If you can show me where one iota of concern should be generated by taking your child for a 2nd opinion, then do so. If you can't, welcome to the Socialist States of America.

@Foil. How many time do we hear stories that DCPS didn't intervene much to the detriment of the child. In this case there was no indication of the parents harming the child and thus DCPS needed to do a in home interview with the parents.

Foil wrote: Here's something I'd ask:

Given that we know that errors will happen, would you rather have Child Protective Services:

• Be aggressive with suspected abuse/neglect (and possibly overstep their authority)?
• Be cautious with suspected abuse/neglect (and possibly miss chances to protect)?

While I hate the idea of the former, the latter may actually be the worse of the two. Unlike the parents in this case (who will eventually hopefully get some justice), it's often too late for cases that CPS misses.

errors in the name of the latter have led(via massive lawsuits in most cases) have led to the former.

woodchip wrote:Well slick, just where was the abuse? If there was none and DCPS didn't first verify it then they and the police acted like the Gestapo and nothing less. If you can show me where one iota of concern should be generated by taking your child for a 2nd opinion, then do so. If you can't, welcome to the Socialist States of America.

you seem to miss a point that Foil and most of the rest of the nation get.

@Foil. How many time do we hear stories that DCPS didn't intervene much to the detriment of the child.

examples are numerous, with children ending up starved, dying from lack of medical intervention, killed by slow repeated abuse, on and on.

In this case there was no indication of the parents harming the child and thus DCPS needed to do a in home interview with the parents.

once again, I suspect that Fox doesn't present the whole story. Likely, more was said after the first opinion which served to alarm the physicians....and, in most cases, a physician complaint is a case of pull the kids first and ask questions later. Why you persist in making this out to be somehow linked to Socialism eludes me. It is actually a direct byproduct of our modern, litigitious capitalist culture.

woodchip wrote:...welcome to the Socialist States of America.

Man I would love to hear how a story about potential overreach of CPS is related to an economic concept involving common ownership of the means of production.

I bet that last post went right over Woody's head....

callmeslick wrote:once again, I suspect that Fox doesn't present the whole story. Likely, more was said after the first opinion which served to alarm the physicians....and, in most cases, a physician complaint is a case of pull the kids first and ask questions later. Why you persist in making this out to be somehow linked to Socialism eludes me. It is actually a direct byproduct of our modern, litigitious capitalist culture.

I agree that I think there's more to the story. Maybe the "more" is simply that this wasn't a reasonable diagnosis to question (note - there's an "oh by the way the child did need it."). It also sounds like they got up in a huff and walked out (lack of proper discharge papers). Finally, it sounded like the police action was a culmination, not out of the blue. I don't remember if they talked about a visit from child services prior to the police visit - but I bet one was at least attempted.

My guess: The parents got indignant with the Dr, and the doctor got pissed. The parents then got indignant with child services, and that further set off the alarms for the case working - causing them to call the police.

On the other hand: I've personally experienced the "little person, big power" syndrome that tends to come with social work - these social workers wield a lot of power to break up/form families and it's easy to abuse in small ways.

What do I take from it: I believe that if I deal with people civilly and politely, I'm going to generally get the benefit of the doubt and this kind of thing won't happen to me. I'd rather have this than another Cuffie Whimes. (That case makes me want to cry every time I think about it - because in certain ways it hits close to home.)

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:...welcome to the Socialist States of America.

Man I would love to hear how a story about potential overreach of CPS is related to an economic concept involving common ownership of the means of production.

I’m pretty sure the “socialism” aspect is impinging on the communal ownership of property. IE: property = your child.

So you’re right, because communal ownership of property is more closely related to communism, than socialism.

Funny how the system can reject you if you can’t afford an operation, but can jail you if you don’t want one.

You're all ignoring one aspect of this, that doctors have God complexes and that they don't like to have their judgement questioned by the lowly patient. Don't believe me? Just try to leave the hospital sometime without first getting permission or a doctor's OK to check out. I can guarantee that if you try to walk out on your own, without their OK written in triplicate, the merde will hit the fan. They can even declare you mentally incompetent, just so's they can keep you there against your will, to "treat" you as they see fit. They have that power too.

They won’t come after you if you don’t have insurance…more like …good riddance.

Yep, that's the only easy way out of hospital jail. No money, no treatment. Bye, bye. Sayonara. Tough tooties. And we wonder why all those mentally ill people are running around freely and can easily get a hold of gun and shoot people.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/ ... 3Y20130503

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:...welcome to the Socialist States of America.

Man I would love to hear how a story about potential overreach of CPS is related to an economic concept involving common ownership of the means of production.

An economic concept eh? Seems govts. identifying with the word socialist turn out to be a bit more than a economic concept. I wonder if the german people thought they were getting a "economic" system when they voted in the National Socialist German Workers' Party. I wonder how their CPS was handling the Jewish children as their govt. pushed them into the ovens. Oh Snap!! The CPS was there preventing the parents from trying to keep their children out of the ovens as the govt. said they had to go in.

Or how about Uncle Joe Stalin who's concept of "socialism in one country" turned out to be a bit more than just "economics" as he sent children to the Gulags along with their parents. Hmmm...wonder where the socialist CPS were and why weren't they trying to protect the children. What is apparent and especially with slick, that the idea of a socialistic system is notorious for abuses of humanity seems to go over your heads. So yeah, lets pretend that the "State is God" concept will never happen here.

Whee, Godwin!

Your ignorance on this topic is just about palpable at this point. You're trying to assert that Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia in any way resembled the economic concepts whose labels they so cutely applied to their megalomania? I suppose you also believe that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a legitimate republican democracy, too. Christ, go read a goddamn polisci book.

These little knee-jerk reactions of yours to terms you can't even use properly (see your fuckwitted avatar) have gone beyond a joke. You're just embarassing yourself, and me by extension, because your brand of willful ignorance gets extended to every 'Murikan by everyone else who points at us and laughs. You are the reason this country sucks so hard right now.

Top Gun wrote:Whee, Godwin!

Your ignorance on this topic is just about palpable at this point. You're trying to assert that Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia in any way resembled the economic concepts whose labels they so cutely applied to their megalomania? I suppose you also believe that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a legitimate republican democracy, too. Christ, go read a goddamn polisci book.

These little knee-jerk reactions of yours to terms you can't even use properly (see your fuckwitted avatar) have gone beyond a joke. You're just embarassing yourself, and me by extension, because your brand of willful ignorance gets extended to every 'Murikan by everyone else who points at us and laughs. You are the reason this country sucks so hard right now.

physician heal thy self.

I have. I actually know what the ★■◆● I'm talking about, unlike our friend woody.

Really TG? You really haven't proved anything in your defense of why "socialism" is only a economic system. And if you think many in the upper liberal circles wouldn't like the presidential term limitations repealed so Obama could be el Presidente for life, I got some bridges to sell you.

Democrats have already proposed the legislation

woodchip wrote:Really TG? You really haven't proved anything in your defense of why "socialism" is only a economic system.

Honestly, reading even the first paragraph of the Wiki article would show you that the basic concept is economic in nature, and that it has been used as an economic tool by a wide array of political philosophies. The fact that you automatically conflate it with authoritarian dictatorships is pretty damn laughable when you realize that there are several countries in Europe operating as socialist democracies, and that their citizens have basically the same set of personal freedoms that you or I enjoy.

I really think you could stand to read up on the concept of the political compass. The website which came up with that exact set-up uses a really goofy quiz to plot different people's viewpoints on it, one which I think isn't of much use, but the underlying concept of separating the political spectrum into separate axes dealing with levels of economic and social control, or something along similar lines, is a sound one that's been used by various other political thinkers. There's no good reason why we should mash up ideas about government intervention in people's lives with economic philosophies, and just label the whole thing "left" or "right."

CUDA wrote:Democrats have already proposed the legislation

Sauce?

Socialism is a system in which production and distribution of goods are based on equality and fairness instead of market forces…therefore it is a political system as well by default.

As invasive as socialism is…you really can’t disconnect the two.

...except you can. A government can take a very laissez-faire approach as far as infringing on its citizens' individual rights, while another can be completely authoritarian in nature...and yet both of them can utilize a socialistic economic model. Hell, we can see examples of both types in action today. There are certainly often correlations between the two axes, but the two address different concepts.

But socialism was born out of politics, its very nature is political, and its goals are also political.

It can’t function without being invasive, it’s impossible for a socialistic system to be laissez-faire.

A very simple example here is redistribution of wealth, a socialistic staple, can only happen with the intrusion of taking someone’s money.

Yes, of course it's political, but it's based upon concepts of economic freedom, instead of social freedom; that's exactly why countries like Sweden which are very permissive on individual freedoms have significant elements of socialism in their economies.. Seriously, do everyone a favor and read through the article.

Top Gun wrote:Yes, of course it's political, but it's based upon concepts of economic freedom,

excuse me! Socialism is based on economic freedom? You have in one sentence discredited your entire stance

Gun, I have been studying socialism for a lot of years, using much more reliable sources than Wiki.

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Yes, of course it's political, but it's based upon concepts of economic freedom,

excuse me! Socialism is based on economic freedom? You have in one sentence discredited your entire stance

...Christ, could you ★■◆●ing twist my post any more if you tried? Socialism falls ALONG THE SCALE of economic freedom, with something like pure communism at one end, and pure unbridled laissez-faire capitalism at the other. What is it with you guys and jumping on buzzwords without even stopping to figure out what they mean?

Spidey wrote:Gun, I have been studying socialism for a lot of years, using much more reliable sources than Wiki.

Studying what, exactly? The relevant elements of that Wiki article, and pretty much any well-edited article on Wiki, are all reliably sourced, so you can go down and read from the exact sources they're coming from. This is exactly what the term "socialism" means, without the rampant misuse of today.

I’m often glad I was born before the internet.

One obvious reason…I avoided the willful ignorance of that stupid assed godwins law.

What's so ignorant about it? The acknowledgment that throwing around "Hitler this" and "Nazis that" in a debate signifies that the speaker is engaging in the mother of all stupid analogies? The realization that using the perpetrator of some of the worst atrocities in modern history as fodder to disparage an opposing viewpoint is really ★■◆●ing low-brow? If you are playing the Nazi card, 99 times out of 100, you're tacitly acknowledging that your argument can't stand on its own two feet, so you're throwing down a massive bomb of irrelevance in an attempt to disguise that fact. Woody's earlier jump to both Hitler and Stalin at the very mention of "socialism" as a term was a perfect example of that in action.

(Also, the core of this concept dates back to the 50s, so you can't blame the Internet.)

And, to avoid the fact that Hitler was a socialist is willful ignorance, and leads to believing that Hitler was a fascist.

Oh, and I don’t blame the internet for stupidity…just amplifying it.

Um...are you actually going to sit there and claim that Hitler wasn't a fascist? Because I would really love to hear that argument.

And it's hilarious how what you're doing is the very definition of reductio ad Hitlerum. "The Nazi Party embraced a form of socialism (which really wasn't), so socialism must be evil!"

I never said socialism was evil because of anything…you totally made that up.

And no…Hitler was not a fascist, he was a Nazi, the fascists were in Italy.

To think that a countries economic structure has nothing to do with it's social condition is laughable. How people have their needs met essentially defines who they are.

Spidey wrote:I never said socialism was evil because of anything…you totally made that up.

You've been pretty heavily implying it throughout this entire thread. "Invasive" and "intrusive" aren't descriptions one would use for something they find hunky-dory.

And no…Hitler was not a fascist, he was a Nazi, the fascists were in Italy.

How's about you try taking a look at just who pops up here? Or are you saying that Mussolini's was the only fascist government of the time just because he used the word in his party's name?

It is important to note that the Nazi Party's conception of international economics was very limited. As the National Socialist in the name NSDAP suggests, the party's primary motivation was to incorporate previously international resources into the Reich by force, rather than by trade (compare to the international socialism as practiced by the Soviet Union and the COMECON trade organization). This made international economic theory a supporting factor in the political ideology rather than a core plank of the platform as it is in most modern political parties.

so it depends on who you talk to if Nazi economic structure was socialism or not. I have found dozens of reference sources that do indeed call it socialism

TG, all I can say about that page is…there seems to be an awful lot of “hindsight definition” and “retroactive defining” going on.
..................

And to answer your question…yes, strictly speaking in reference to being an actual political party.

After the war the term “fascist” became an all inclusive definition, to include many different things such as totalitarianism, dictatorship, tyranny…etc.

Even that page states that “fascist” is one of the most overused terms, hell people even call police “fascist”.

So as a political party, the Nazis were not “fascist” but as a general descriptive term…yes they were.

And since the context of this thread was political parties…

CUDA wrote:

It is important to note that the Nazi Party's conception of international economics was very limited. As the National Socialist in the name NSDAP suggests, the party's primary motivation was to incorporate previously international resources into the Reich by force, rather than by trade (compare to the international socialism as practiced by the Soviet Union and the COMECON trade organization). This made international economic theory a supporting factor in the political ideology rather than a core plank of the platform as it is in most modern political parties.

so it depends on who you talk to if Nazi economic structure was socialism or not. I have found dozens of reference sources that do indeed call it socialism

The tricky thing is, while the Nazi Party certainly paid a hell of a lot of lip service to socialism, and used some general tenets of socialism in its economic policies, it borrowed equally from far-right ideologies, and its economy in practice didn't resemble anything that we'd label as "socialism" today. Apparently Hitler himself never really embraced a firm economic theory; you can see from his quotes there that he was definitely heavily in favor of the ownership of private property. He came down pretty heavily against both capitalism and communism, and it can be noted that there were plenty of prominent leftists that were victims of Nazi purges.

Spidey wrote:TG, all I can say about that page is…there seems to be an awful lot of “hindsight definition” and “retroactive defining” going on.

So...why is that a bad thing, exactly? Isn't the only real way to get an accurate perspective on the overall philosophy of the Nazi Party to look back on what they did, instead of relying solely on what they said about themselves at the time? Like I stated before, along the same lines, if you believe that North Korea's official name of a "Democratic Republic" accurately describes its government, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Mussolini's Italy may have been the originator of the concept of "fascism" as a term, but if you hold Hitler's Germany up to it, and go down the listing of the major qualities of fascism, it's pretty much a perfect match. The rest of your post is trying to split hairs that don't even exist: if the Nazi Party embraced every philosophy that defines a fascist state, then it was a fascist party by default. It's not "overuse" to apply the term to what it actually means in the first place.