Pretty what? All sentences are ambiguous if you try hard enough. If you could tell what the meaning was, why are you insulting a strawman while actively admitting it is a strawman?
A camera can find mistreatment before it turns critical, and then the sitter is replaced.
That is protecting the baby's health, which sometimes reaches the level of saving lives.
Your logic only works if camera footage goes unwatched until the day the babysitter exits the business.
Edit: And that 'thin line' remark is 100% a strawman. I don't know how you can admit it isn't the "intended meaning" and yet claim it's not a strawman.
The statement about the intended meaning is there in an attempt to avoid this conversation. I was not putting the argument in their mouth, I was being bombastic in my criticism of their phrasing. If I was raising it as a serious argument, you are right, I probably wouldn't try to undermine it 10 words later.
