I've found that adding that disclaimer is entirely useless. Like holding beef jerky in front of a dog and saying "I'm not offering this to you, just holding it here".

You really couldn't have picked a better example to illustrate why the OPs argument was so ignorant. Pretending that reality doesn't exist doesn't make it stop existing.

No one is disagreeing that 1 per store per day is a small number. We're disagreeing with the OPs statement that there's nothing wrong with one false positive accusation of shoplifting per store per day given the obvious consequences of such an accusation in the context of the US system of policing and global blame shifting to the machine, and that given such a context essentially any false positive rate is too high.

So it's useless to say that A is wrong, but not because of B as claimed -- A is wrong for other reasons?

That sure does limit discussion, and human reason generally. I mean, what do you suggest instead?

I'm just saying I've tried to proffer a position while disclaiming any support for it, and maybe some people listen, but there will always be someone who is too tempted to attack the position instead of treating it as a specimen.