Ray started out well, making a point that needed to be made, then corrupted it by subsequently making it about partisan politics.

The question should be couched like this: First, do we (all of us, despite whatever class we're discussing) bear responsiblity when something bad happens to us? If so, to what degree and in what way? Or, does being a victim of an outrage render us (or some of us) forever blameless in any way? Or does this apply only to certain groups and classes? And is it all merely about, ideology being the handmaid of socio-political one upmanship?

The standard we hold the two sexes (to take two ditinguishable groups) wrt these questions seems to be radically different. Those who would excuse women in a blanket wholesale way would in other scenarios be seen as attempting to infantilize them. Why not here? Why do women need all these handicaps? And who gets to decide when they need them? (Just the group that will benefit?) And is there such a thing as reciprocity for the "opposing" group?

Edit: #### it. I'm not going to get sucked into the trolling.

Indeed. Unfortunately, liberals keep telling the women that their decisions had nothing to do with the situation they're in. It's a pretty terrible message that liberals give, but what can you do?

I know! It's terrible that these liberals have been spreading this message and created this terrible problem that never existed before. And then they conveniently hide behind the "abusive relationships have always existed and are a lot more complex than can be discerned from news headlines and partisan talking points" excuse, when any right-thinking man can see through this claptrap and tell you the whole thing is pretty simply avoidable.

The question should be couched like this: First, do we (all of us, despite whatever class we're discussing) bear responsiblity when something bad happens to us? If so, to what degree and in what way?

This is so specific to cases I don't think generalizing does much good. I have gotten into the occasional verbal tussle with female friends over responsibility for sex when alcohol is involved. The extreme position, that consensual sex is impossible when one has been drinking, is ludicrous. It essentially reserves the right to cry rape when sex is followed by regret. Still, it hardly means that because a man and woman drink heavily that the woman cannot have been raped. Like I said, cases and details, without which we're paddling at midnight in a sewer of black ink.

Speaking of responsibility, I'm of the opinion that in many instances, men who father children with women who a) they have no significant relationship with; b) have no legitimate objection to abortion, should not be obliged to pay child support if they're not inclined to. The woman, if she goes to term, is entirely responsible (except in the most forgettable, pragmatic sense) for giving birth; she should therefore be responsible for the child's support.

It's a view of responsibility in this issue I can't pretend finds much favor, but it is specific to cases and does find the person exercising the substantive choice to be fully responsible for doing so.

It's also possible that if enough women started doing this men owning unnecessary guns might become less popular as an attempt to improve their chances meeting women.

I hear from time to time it's the job or duty (and that it's even at all possible) for women to civilize men or otherwise change them. I don't think it's happened since Lysistrata, and even that was fictional.

I honestly don't see much chance that women are going to band together in a meaningful way and lower the percentage of gun ownership.

Edit: #### it. I'm not going to get sucked into the trolling.

Yeah, I kind of felt this way about Lassus's trolling also, after I got sucked in.

Hey, women got alcohol banned

Alas they aren't affordable for high-school-math-teacher-and-state-social-worker households

Great, a household made up of a member of a bloodsucking union and someone who gets paid to serve the freeloading masses.

1546. Manny Coon Posted: December 08, 2012 at 11:38 PM (#4320182)
When my wife and I started date we talked about the types of things that would be relationship deal breakers, and one main things she mentioned as was owning guns, she said wouldn't date someone owned guns and never ever wanted guns kept in her home. My guess is women with these sort of restrictions are less likely to get shot than ones who like men with guns,...

In fairness to Ray, I think this is a specific example of what he was trying to get at**, and it's not as if women haven't expressed this exact sentiment in skyrllions of conversations, articles, lectures, and books. Just as it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, it's entirely possible to realize that (a) women, like men, often choose to engage in relationships that they know cannot possibly end well; while also knowing that (b) if a woman gets assaulted, the fact that she made a stupid decision*** does not mean for a second that the assault was the fault of anyone other than the man. Stupidity is an intellectual failing, but "fault" implies a moral failure, and stupidity is not a moral failing. And not distinguishing between these two failures is the cause of way too many stupid discussions.

**and expressed it fairly well in #1535 when he wrote....

She's making the point that women have responsibility for making their own decisions, including getting involved with men they know to be violent. If the woman doesn't know the man is violent or that he has that potential, that's one thing; but in many cases the women knows or should know -- certainly in cases where the man has already been violent with her, and yet she stays. These things are often predictable in advance, just as whether the man has the potential to earn a good living, or be a drunk, etc.

***To go out with an obvious creep that she meets casually out of loneliness; to dress provocatively in a lowlife bar; etc.

@1558: I'm not sure we can successfully remove the moral implications of 'fault' in many cases. Surely someone who walks down an alley in a crime-ridden neighborhood with hundred dollar bills sticking out of their pocket is at least somewhat responsible for getting mugged, no? I agree with your assessment that it's a 'stupid decision', but is the best approach to the subject to dispense entirely with the issue of blameworthiness? For the purpose of insurance, at least, stupid decisions contribute to matters of blame. I think I'm asking, what do we gain by removing morality from these equations, and, don't we create at least as many problems of definition as we solve?***

The world is dangerous at times. Make better decisions to protect yourself. If after the attack, you and liberal organizations want to use the attack to mock conservatives, whatever, but that won't stop the attack. The bruises remain.

Promoting a philosophy of 'I can do anything I want without concern of my environment'...

I know you didn't mean to parody yourself, but if there was ever a description of right wing self-absorption and a refusal to take responsibility for behavior while pretending that one's environment isn't a deeply, widely connected entity, your post is that parody.


***It's past midnight and that paragraph reflects that. I might try the issue again tomorrow as I think your post makes an interesting suggestion worthy of discussion.

@1558: I'm not sure we can successfully remove the moral implications of 'fault' in many cases. Surely someone who walks down an alley in a crime-ridden neighborhood with hundred dollar bills sticking out of their pocket is at least somewhat responsible for getting mugged, no?

We might say that Ray's history of making bizarre points and championing highly questionable views means that he's at least somewhat at fault for some people taking a pretty valid point from him the wrong way :)

.
@1560: Ouch, but true. :)
He has only himself to blame.

The real question is, will he finally take responsibility?

Hey, have you (or anyone) read Nate Silver's The Signal and The Noise? The excerpt Amazon offers is intriguing, but brief. My niece asked me what I wanted for Christmas and I want to go easy on her. It's under $18 on Amazon, as is Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Can't make up my mind.

edit: I realize they've only had a couple of decades to develop it, but shouldn't Microsoft have come up by now with an email program that uses an actual, working, competently designed word processor program that functions somewhat well in their own effing browser? Just curious.

@1558: I'm not sure we can successfully remove the moral implications of 'fault' in many cases. Surely someone who walks down an alley in a crime-ridden neighborhood with hundred dollar bills sticking out of their pocket is at least somewhat responsible for getting mugged, no? I agree with your assessment that it's a 'stupid decision', but is the best approach to the subject to dispense entirely with the issue of blameworthiness? For the purpose of insurance, at least, stupid decisions contribute to matters of blame. I think I'm asking, what do we gain by removing morality from these equations, and, don't we create at least as many problems of definition as we solve?***

***It's past midnight and that paragraph reflects that. I might try the issue again tomorrow as I think your post makes an interesting suggestion worthy of discussion.

Let me put it this way: If my daughter went into a lowlife bar flashing cleavage and a mini-skirt, let herself get picked up by a Hell's Angel, and got assaulted fifteen minutes later, I'd first call the cops and try to press full charges against the assailant, but once my daughter's trauma had subsided, I'd sure as hell ask her in a non-confrontational way what the hell she thought she had been doing. I still wouldn't assign any sort of moral blame to her unbelievably stupid choices, but I'd sure be wondering where she'd left 90% of her brain cells on the night of the assault.

It's a dividing line that often results in juries acquitting rapists on the grounds that the woman was "asking for it", which is a complete sack of #### as a general rule, although in many cases the specific facts come down to he said / she said. But I think that the distinction between intellectual failing (stupidity) and moral blame is one that has to be drawn, or else you're going to wind up implicitly justifying a whole lot of sexual assaults.

On a broader scale, when you combine complete (euphemism alert) freedom of expression with lots of people who don't quite understand what's being said, you're going to wind up with a lot of (euphemism alert) misunderstanding. And when you add a factor of one party being much bigger and stronger than the other, you're bound to wind up with an occasional tragedy. Truth be told, there's absolutely nothing that can be done about this sort of thing beyond massive re-education of everyone and / or enough cops in every bar or motel room to enforce the laws. Which will happen around the time that the Redskins play the Yankees in the 2013 Stanley Cup.

Speaking of responsibility, I'm of the opinion that in many instances, men who father children with women who a) they have no significant relationship with; b) have no legitimate objection to abortion, should not be obliged to pay child support if they're not inclined to. The woman, if she goes to term, is entirely responsible (except in the most forgettable, pragmatic sense) for giving birth; she should therefore be responsible for the child's support.

Why is the man's lack of interest the baby's fault? The man is capable of making a choice, the baby is not. Let's take abortion out of the question. Man has sex with someone he barely knows, woman raises the kid as a single mom. Kid is disadvantaged by the situation. Then he or she grows up and locates the father somehow. Father's excuse is "I wanted to have sex with her, and she could have aborted you, so not my problem."

I guess I figured that the worst case scenario of a casual sexual encounter was a baby, and that it was my responsibility, since I was capable of making a choice. Since I was risk averse, I did not pursue casual sexual encounters. How is a man not responsible for the children he helps bring into the world?

In fairness to Ray, I think this is a specific example of what he was trying to get at**, and it's not as if women haven't expressed this exact sentiment in skyrllions of conversations, articles, lectures, and books. Just as it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, it's entirely possible to realize that (a) women, like men, often choose to engage in relationships that they know cannot possibly end well; while also knowing that (b) if a woman gets assaulted, the fact that she made a stupid decision*** does not mean for a second that the assault was the fault of anyone other than the man. Stupidity is an intellectual failing, but "fault" implies a moral failure, and stupidity is not a moral failing. And not distinguishing between these two failures is the cause of way too many stupid discussions.

This is very well expressed. It also demonstrates in the way it ascribes its terms and parcels out responsibility as to the respective parties exactly what I was getting at. Why is one party being merely and only stupid while the other is morally thoroughly reprehensible? Why this cut and dry white hat/black hat framing of the problem? Why isn’t it seen as a continuum?

A crack whore finally reduced to living in Crackton who is finally beaten and killed by her pimp/dealer hasn’t made any moral choices along the line to her fate? She’s just exercised bad intellectual judgment? At what point are we to say she is not responsible whatsoever for her fate? Same question as to “him”. One participant is completely deferred to at a certain point—one participant never is. She is too drunk to have the capacity to consent to sex, even though she acts as if she consented, so he should have known—thus, it’s rape. Is he ever too drunk to be capable of discerning that incapacity? And why should that burden to do so be his? We as a society, and our legal and political institutions and process, are much more interested in one of these questions than the other. Why? These are hard questions—but I submit they are much more telling and interesting than the superficial unthinking (but self-interested to one party) way we approach and decide the problem, seemingly out of hand.

Why do we so insist on viewing members of one class in this special way—as the mentally challenged on the one hand, who must be deferred to as princesses on the other hand because they are somehow in some way just better as a class? Or special. But, again, we must never talk about it in that way. We must live a pretense that there is no difference or if there is it is warranted without discussion, much less questioning.

How is a man not responsible for the children he helps bring into the world?

Giving men the option to abdicate legal rights/financial obligations just levels the playing field. Women have the option of having an abortion to do so. The man isn't given that option for the obvious reason.

I applaud Jack Carter for having such an ideologically consistent view on the matter. If I recall correctly, it's actually mostly feminists who are behind the idea who also deserve applause for their ideological consistency.

Of course a law allowing for such a thing will never happen since it would increase the pressure on the mother to abort. Not many folks are really pro abortion.

In fairness to Ray, I think this is a specific example of what he was trying to get at, and it's not as if women haven't expressed this exact sentiment in skyrllions of conversations, articles, lectures, and books. Just as it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, it's entirely possible to realize that (a) women, like men, often choose to engage in relationships that they know cannot possibly end well; while also knowing that (b) if a woman gets assaulted, the fact that she made a stupid decision*** does not mean for a second that the assault was the fault of anyone other than the man. Stupidity is an intellectual failing, but "fault" implies a moral failure, and stupidity is not a moral failing. And not distinguishing between these two failures is the cause of way too many stupid discussions.

This is very well expressed. It also demonstrates in the way it ascribes its terms and parcels out responsibility as to the respective parties exactly what I was getting at. Why is one party being merely and only stupid while the other is morally thoroughly reprehensible? Why this cut and dry white hat/black hat framing of the problem? Why isn’t it seen as a continuum?

A crack whore finally reduced to living in Crackton who is finally beaten and killed by her pimp/dealer hasn’t made any moral choices along the line to her fate?

Plenty of them, but none of them remove a smidgen of culpability from her murderer. Her lack of morality pertains to the effect her life choices have had on others: Her children (if any), her husband (if any, and if he wasn't also her pimp), her friends or neighbors (if she'd stolen from them to support a habit), and possibly many others along the way. I'm not trying to soft-pedal any of that. But none of that makes her morally responsible (or "blameworthy") for her own death.

She’s just exercised bad intellectual judgment? At what point are we to say she is not responsible whatsoever for her fate?

As I say above, she's responsible for making the choices that eventually thrust her into the clutches of a murderous pimp.** But the pimp is the sole person responsible for her death.***

Same question as to “him”. One participant is completely deferred to at a certain point—one participant never is. She is too drunk to have the capacity to consent to sex, even though she acts as if she consented, so he should have known—thus, it’s rape. Is he ever too drunk to be capable of discerning that incapacity? And why should that burden to do so be his? We as a society, and our legal and political institutions and process, are much more interested in one of these questions than the other. Why? These are hard questions—but I submit they are much more telling and interesting than the superficial unthinking (but self-interested to one party) way we approach and decide the problem, seemingly out of hand.

Truth is, the only definitive answer to those hard questions in most cases is to have a surveillance camera on the scene, because otherwise we're reduced to simply making assumptions. Without that, we can often make reasonable inferences from other facts that we know for sure, but without that visual evidence, you're never going to have 100% certainty.

**Though given the circumstances in which many children grow up, it's hard to say that many of those choices were entirely the result of "free will" in any meaningful sense of the term.

***Assuming she didn't first come after him with a blade or another sort of life threatening weapon.

Same question as to “him”. One participant is completely deferred to at a certain point—one participant never is. She is too drunk to have the capacity to consent to sex, even though she acts as if she consented, so he should have known—thus, it’s rape. Is he ever too drunk to be capable of discerning that incapacity? And why should that burden to do so be his? We as a society, and our legal and political institutions and process, are much more interested in one of these questions than the other. Why? These are hard questions—but I submit they are much more telling and interesting than the superficial unthinking (but self-interested to one party) way we approach and decide the problem, seemingly out of hand.

You are talking as if we live in a society of neutral, unbiased observers only interested in a dispassionate reckoning of the situation. But we don't. We live in a society where the default assumption is that rape is a stigma, that it is the woman's fault, that "some women, they rape so easy." We live in a society where sexual assault is common, in part because certain men are well aware of that societal attitude and take advantage of it.

By coincidence, both the Washington Post and the New York Times had excellent articles today on the topic of child poverty and the problem that government programs often have with maintaining individual incentives. The Post article by Anne Hull is about a 17-year old girl growing up in both miserable family and financial conditions in a Pennsylvania Rust Belt town, while the Times Op-Ed by Nicholas Kristof deals with a pair of young mothers in Kentucky. All the people discussed are white, and there's plenty in both of these pieces that should unsettle both liberals and conservatives.

(Washington Post) In Rust Belt, a Teenager’s Climb From Poverty

In a Rust Belt town, a teenager’s climb from poverty:?Tabitha Rouzzo yearns to take a different path than those around her in New Castle, Pa., but leaving poverty requires a more exhaustive effort than it once did in America....

(New York Times) Profiting From a Child’s Illiteracy

THIS is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability....

shouldn't Microsoft have come up by now with an email program that uses an actual, working, competently designed word processor program

This supposes that they could design a competent word-processing program in the first place :)

Giving men the option to abdicate legal rights/financial obligations just levels the playing field. Women have the option of having an abortion to do so. The man isn't given that option for the obvious reason.

I applaud Jack Carter for having such an ideologically consistent view on the matter. If I recall correctly, it's actually mostly feminists who are behind the idea who also deserve applause for their ideological consistency.

Of course a law allowing for such a thing will never happen since it would increase the pressure on the mother to abort. Not many folks are really pro abortion.

You could never write the law, but the responsibilities are unequal, the rights can be as well. The woman has to carry to term, the man has no responsibilities there. And as I said, the man can avoid his responsibilities simply by avoiding intercourse. As can the woman.

have no legitimate objection to abortion

What constitutes a legitimate objection to abortion? What constitutes an illegitamate objection?

Why isn't "I didn't want to get an abortion", by itself, a legitimate objection?

How many abortions have you had/performed/wtnesssed/paid for/engendered/encouraged, so as to put you in a positon to make these value judgments.

Just asking.

Very strange page of discussion. First, a bunch of lefties objected to Dana Perino's comments and to Ray pointing out that "women have responsibility for making their own decisions," with "Something Other" a.k.a. "Jack Carter" going so far as to classify Ray's comments as trolling. Then, in an overlapping discussion, the very same "Something Other"/"Jack Carter" says that women who get pregnant should bear full responsibility, with the men involved having $0 liability.

I guess the lefty calculus here — or at least "Jack Carter's" — is as follows:

- Women who make the choice to return to abusive men bear no responsibility;
- Women who make the choice to carry a pregnancy to term bear 100 percent responsibility.

You could never write the law, but the responsibilities are unequal, the rights can be as well.

The issue is, that the man in this situation has zero rights. He does not get to decide whether or not to have an abortion. And he is not going to get custody of the child if he wants it.*

In a situation where a person has no rights, they should be allowed to opt out of the responsibilities, if they choose to.

*Just to be clear, I agree obviously that the woman should have these rights, and not the man.

That'll teach the little bastards.

The issue is, that the man in this situation has zero rights. He does not get to decide whether or not to have an abortion. And he is not going to get custody of the child if he wants it.*

In a situation where a person has no rights, they should be allowed to opt out of the responsibilities, if they choose to.

*Just to be clear, I agree obviously that the woman should have these rights, and not the man.

They can opt out by not having sex with the person.

To me having intercourse was like firing a gun. Beyond the obvious analogy. I fire a gun, I take responsibility for the consequences. I have sex with someone I don't know very well, there's a baby, the mom turns out to be a PITA, it's still my fault because I could have opted out.

Like I said, I have been risk averse in that part of my life. The worst case scenario was not something I wanted to deal with, and I couldn't really deny intent on my part if I went ahead.

To me having intercourse was like firing a gun. Beyond the obvious analogy.

That I'm not allowed to do it near an elementary school?

Any more?

Any more?

That the best way to eliminate risk is firing blanks?

Re 1563: Jay, yup, those are definitely some of the points my stance raises. Here's what I have for answers.

Speaking of responsibility, I'm of the opinion that in many instances, men who father children with women who a) they have no significant relationship with; b) have no legitimate objection to abortion, should not be obliged to pay child support if they're not inclined to. The woman, if she goes to term, is entirely responsible (except in the most forgettable, pragmatic sense) for giving birth; she should therefore be responsible for the child's support.


Why is the man's lack of interest the baby's fault?

It's not the fetus's fault, but if we're going to decide there's fault here, it's surely the woman's fault. She knew (in the case I put) already, prior to, during, and the entire time after conception of the man's lack of interest. If she choose to bring the fetus to term and have a baby, it's in clear recognition of the man's lack of interest.

The man is capable of making a choice, the baby is not.

You're taking the woman out of the equation, and I don't accept that framing, particularly when, as a matter of law, we've decided that the man in fact has zero say in whether the woman brings the fetus to term.

Let's take abortion out of the question.

We can't do that. It's in the equation and can't be separated from it without distorting what follows. It's like talking about jumping off cliffs and saying 'let's take the fact that men unaided cannot fly out of the equation', You can do that, of course, but you'll draw thoroughly misleading conclusions.

Man has sex with someone he barely knows, woman raises the kid as a single mom.

As I said, that's too big a jump, and the omissions are terribly distorting. I'd phrase it instead, more accurately and completely, as "A man and woman have sex. The woman knows the man has no interest in having a child. Nonetheless she chooses to go to term and conceives. Raises the kid as a single mom, as she knew she would have to."

Kid is disadvantaged by the situation. Then he or she grows up and locates the father somehow. Father's excuse is "I wanted to have sex with her, and she could have aborted you, so not my problem."

Uh, yeah. What he really says is,

Yes, your mom knew I did not want to have a child with her. She decided to have you anyway. I hope that has worked out well for you. Why don't you come on inside and meet my wife of fifteen years and our three lovely children? Fortunately, the state got out of the business of compelling the subsidizing of single moms by their sperm donors and as a result I was able to put the $6,800*** out of the $40,000 gross I was earning at that time towards getting married and starting a family of my own. Believe me, kid, it's made all the difference. I don't know whether that sounds like a lot to you, but with inflation and interest it means I will be able to put something like a quarter of a million dollars into my own family. Without that I wouldn't be able to do this.

Say, are you old enough to drink? Want a beer? Sit, sit. Honey, remember Beebee, the girl I told you about? Her kid's here. Yeah, definitely, set an extra place! Can you stay for dinner?

Your close:

I guess I figured that the worst case scenario of a casual sexual encounter was a baby, and that it was my responsibility, since I was capable of making a choice. Since I was risk averse, I did not pursue casual sexual encounters. How is a man not responsible for the children he helps bring into the world?

As you probably gathered, I just don't accept this framing. You don't stay out of cars, I'm sure. It's more direct and apt to say, "Why is the woman allowed to dragoon a man into subsidizing what we as a society have decided here is entirely her choice?

There was some degree of fairness involved in forcing a man to pay support when we forced women to bring fetuses to term. We no longer do that. In a very real sense, in millions of cases, we no longer compel support for the sake of the child, but instead for the sake of subsidizing a woman's decision to bring a fetus to term.

How can we frame it otherwise when the woman has all the say in bearing a child and the man has none?

-----

In conclusion: why does the woman get to substantively dictate the man's economic future and with it HIS choice of who to have a child and raise a family with? Paying child support for a child he does not want and was known not to want does indeed impair a man's ability to have the family of his choosing. By placing all the legal emphasis on a woman's right to choose, but by placing on the man the burden of supporting that choice, we've significantly damaged a man's rights.

We've also, as a good conservative might note, incentivized single women to become single mothers by compelling a man's support.

When I hear "hey, he knew the risks", three things jump to mind. The first is Sheldon Adelson telling women, if they don't want to get pregnant and therewith have to contend with increasingly restrictive regulations on abortion, to remain chaste by putting an aspirin between their knees.

The second is one of the justifications for making abortions illegal, that if you don't have sex outside wedlock, it's not an issue. We don't accept that any more wrt women. Why do we accept the same thinking when it's aimed at men?

The third is, the general principles we apply everywhere else. We don't tell people who get into automobile accidents through no fault of their own, where their only contribution was leaving the driveway as a necessary and natural function of traveling, that they have no recourse after an accident which the other driver could well imagine was not an accident our driver wanted to have. We don't say, "Hey buddy, you should have kept it in the driveway. Too bad for you."

***17% of his gross income is what NYS forces noncustodial parents to pay to custodial parents in child support, for one child.

shouldn't Microsoft have come up by now with an email program that uses an actual, working, competently designed word processor program

This supposes that they could design a competent word-processing program in the first place :)

QFT. Word is a horrible program that seems to get worse and worse with each revision.

As you probably gathered, I just don't accept this framing. You don't stay out of cars, I'm sure. It's more direct and apt to say, "Why is the woman allowed to dragoon a man into subsidizing what we as a society have decided her is entirely her choice?

There was some degree of fairness involved in forcing a man to pay support when we forced women to bring fetus's to term. We no longer do that. In a very real sense, in millions of cases, we no longer compel support for the sake of the child, but instead for the sake of subsidizing a woman's decision to bring a fetus to term.

-----

In conclusion: why does the woman get to substantively dictate the man's economic future and with it HIS choice of who to have a child and raise a family with? Paying child support for a child he does not want and was known not to want does indeed impair a man's ability to have the family of his choosing. By placing all the legal emphasis on a woman's right to choose, but by placing on the man the burden of supporting that choice, we've significantly damaged a man's rights.

We've also, as a good conservative might note, incentivized single women to become single mothers by compelling a man's support.

When I hear "hey, he knew the risks", three things jump to mind. The first is Sheldon Adelson telling women, if they don't want to get pregnant, to remain chaste by putting an aspirin between their knees.

The second is one of the justifications for making abortions illegal, that if you don't have sex outside wedlock, it's not an issue. We don't accept that any more wrt women. Why do we except the same thinking when it's aimed at men?

The third is, the general principles we apply everywhere else. We don't tell people who get into automobile accidents through no fault of their own, where their only contribution was leaving the driveway, that they have no recourse after an accident which the other driver could well imagine was not an accident they wanted to have. We don't say, "Hey buddy, you should have kept it in the driveway. Too bad for you."

***17% of his gross income is what NYS forces noncustodial parents to pay to custodial parents in child support, for one child.

This reads like a libertarian manifesto — and expresses much more of a "war on women" than anything the GOP ever suggested — yet it was written by a far-left liberal who expresses disdain for libertarians and conservatives at every opportunity.

These threads are getting stranger by the day.

Why is the woman allowed to dragoon a man into subsidizing what we as a society have decided her is entirely her choice?

If a man led a woman to believe pre-sex he was willing to help raise the child if pregnancy occurred, (I've heard this happens), is he on the hook, or is it caveat emptor for every sexual encounter on the females part?

//and I thought the choice she had was whether or not to carry to term, not getting pregnant in the first place?

1562: Nick--you raise some strong points, one's I'd love to address, but between the support issue (to which I've given more thought) and the need to write an email to my attorney to get her off her ass and finish something two months overdue by tomorrow, I may not get to it tonight.

edit: I see in 1564 that Morty brings up a number of interesting counters.

have no legitimate objection to abortion


What constitutes a legitimate objection to abortion? What constitutes an illegitamate objection?

Why isn't "I didn't want to get an abortion", by itself, a legitimate objection?

How many abortions have you had/performed/wtnesssed/paid for/engendered/encouraged, so as to put you in a positon to make these value judgments.

Just asking.

I probably erred, rhetorically, by trying to address the issue of abortion re support. I wanted to clean the slate, if you will, and not get into the sticky issue of a woman feeling compelled by her religious beliefs to bear a fetus to term. In retrospect, they are HER religious beliefs; if she wants to follow them it isn't up to the sperm donor to subsidize to his substantial detriment the consequence of her beliefs.

Re your fourth paragraph, my agenda is too grown up to play with your agenda. Thanks for asking, though.

Just saying.

edit: 1565--thanks, Steve.

In a situation where a person has no rights, they should be allowed to opt out of the responsibilities, if they choose to.

Fancy Pants said it more cleanly and elegantly than I did. I agree with him.

You could never write the law, but the responsibilities are unequal, the rights can be as well. The woman has to carry to term, the man has no responsibilities there. And as I said, the man can avoid his responsibilities simply by avoiding intercourse. As can the woman.

As I suggested, this is indistinguishable from one of the arguments in favor of making abortion illegal. "If you don't have sex out of wedlock, you won't need an abortion." It doesn't wash.

In any case, no, "the woman" doesn't "ha[ve] to carry to term." She simply doesn't. You entire case hinges on asserting something must happen when in fact it does not have to happen.

That'll teach the little bastards.

That's no way to talk about women choosing to become single mothers.

THIS is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability....

I just had to note, this isn't the result of bad government incentives, this is the result of insanely bad parenting.

shouldn't Microsoft have come up by now with an email program that uses an actual, working, competently designed word processor program

This supposes that they could design a competent word-processing program in the first place :)

Yes. Yes it does. My error, big time.

QFT. Word is a horrible program that seems to get worse and worse with each revision.

I agree with Ray. Raining frogs to follow.

The third is, the general principles we apply everywhere else. We don't tell people who get into automobile accidents through no fault of their own, where their only contribution was leaving the driveway as a necessary and natural function of traveling, that they have no recourse after an accident which the other driver could well imagine was not an accident our driver wanted to have. We don't say, "Hey buddy, you should have kept it in the driveway. Too bad for you."

Simple-minded garbage. "Honestly, sir, I've no idea how my sperm fertilized that egg. I was just laying there."

That'll teach the little bastards.

That's no way to talk about women choosing to become single mothers.

I was only talking about the little bastards.

This reads like a libertarian manifesto — and expresses much more of a "war on women" than anything the GOP ever suggested — yet it was written by a far-left liberal who expresses disdain for libertarians and conservatives at every opportunity.

I guess if I hewed exactly to a party line it would be pretty baffling to me when others didn’t, too.

That'll teach the little bastards.

That's no way to talk about women choosing to become single mothers.

I was only talking about the little bastards.

That's no way to talk about short women choosing to become single mothers.

Why is the woman allowed to dragoon a man into subsidizing what we as a society have decided her is entirely her choice?

If a man led a woman to believe pre-sex he was willing to help raise the child if pregnancy occurred, (I've heard this happens), is he on the hook, or is it caveat emptor for every sexual encounter on the females part?

//and I thought the choice she had was whether or not to carry to term, not getting pregnant in the first place?

Details matter, but that one wouldn't affect my overall position. A promise that changes behavior is, in my opinion, actionable. If it became litigious, I suppose we'd resort to the usual tests and proofs. If there was no demonstrable history, no emails, no legally taped calls or conversations, and no one overheard, and all we have is the female plaintiff asserting 'but he said...' with the male defendant asserting 'no I didn't...' I'd guess what happens is what often happens in these cases: the plaintiff is shirt out of luck unless her testimony is credible enough to overcome the lack of other evidence. I don't know that I'd want the situation treated much differently than any other contention surrounding a verbal agreement.

Perhaps the lawyers can tell us whether a promise to support over the life of the child, given that some verbal contracts are limited to a one year promise (IANAL, obviously), is enforceable.

As for your last graf, I don't quite follow. Both men and women have the option of using birth control, of course, which sometimes fails. Am I missing something obvious? It feels like I am.

Simple-minded garbage. "Honestly, sir, I've no idea how my sperm fertilized that egg. I was just laying there.

As with 1571, this issue does bring out the rancor. Thanks for.. showing up, though?

In any case, knowing the mechanics of conception is like knowing how roads work. It doesn't mean that another driver gets to cause you to bear $250,000 in costs just because you happen to be aware that sometimes, someone runs into you

How reliable is vasectomy reversal these days? I bet if there was a similar government mandate as for women’s birth control, wherein vasectomies (and reversals) must be provided with no out-of-pocket costs, a lot more young men would get them. And Republicans probably wouldn’t even object, since it’s about men being promiscuous and not women.

1559. Removing the recognition of social environment (whether it be its dangers or its moral norms) from personal action relate equally to the victim as well as the perpetrator. Thinking you can focus your message to just one without influencing the other will fail.

I guess if I hewed exactly to a party line it would be pretty baffling to me when others didn’t, too. — Gotham Dave

Yes, I'm a down-the-line conservative who favors gay marriage and the estate tax and wants to see higher wages for working-class people.

Care to list three major issues on which you disagree with the Dem platform? (Other liberals are welcome to jump in and do the same.)

That'll teach the little bastards.

That's no way to talk about women choosing to become single mothers.

I was only talking about the little bastards.

That's no way to talk about short women choosing to become single mothers.

Sad to think you don't know the difference between a little bastard and a wee wench.

This reads like a libertarian manifesto — and expresses much more of a "war on women" than anything the GOP ever suggested — yet it was written by a far-left liberal who expresses disdain for libertarians and conservatives at every opportunity.

I guess if I hewed exactly to a party line it would be pretty baffling to me when others didn’t, too.

I only get Joe now through the filters of what other posters choose to address (I just can't play the game), but, yeah, this.

I'm disdainful of libs because their 'philosophy' is self- contradictory from its genesis. It proposes society should be structured entirely around what libertarians want and believe is essential, while claiming what anyone else wants doesn't matter a damn. Their claim of first principles is obscure, at best, and entirely self-serving. Worst of all, they want me to be responsible for paying for their structure.

As for conservatives, I have nothing against them. I've only met a few, though. Joe isn't one of them, of course.

None of what I wrote contradicts any liberal principles unless one gets his liberal principles by way of Fox and Jim DeMint.

How reliable is vasectomy reversal these days? I bet if there was a similar government mandate as for women’s birth control, wherein vasectomies (and reversals) must be provided with no out-of-pocket costs, a lot more young men would get them. And Republicans probably wouldn’t even object, since it’s about men being promiscuous and not women.

I have yet to meet a vascular surgeon who will come close to guaranteeing reversability. Reversal is also rather more complicated and painful than the original procedure.

Speaking of eugenics, the government will pay for the sterilization of men and woman receiving Supplemental Security Income Disability.

I blessedly only get Joe now through the filters of what other posters choose to address, but, yeah, this.

I guess "Something Other" a.k.a. "Jack Carter" won't get to see #1591. Oh, well.

None of what I wrote contradicts any liberal principles unless one gets his liberal principles by way of Fox and Jim DeMint.

Yeah, except for almost every word you wrote, if applied to any situation except child support.

In "Jack Carter's" world:

- Money taken for child support = tyranny
- Money taken for anything else = democracy

That'll teach the little bastards.

That's no way to talk about women choosing to become single mothers.

I was only talking about the little bastards.

That's no way to talk about short women choosing to become single mothers.

Sad to think you don't know the difference between a little bastard and a wee wench.

Lucky for you you've never met them when they're inhabiting the same body.

Yes, I'm a down-the-line conservative who favors gay marriage and the estate tax and wants to see higher wages for working-class people.

Care to list three major issues on which you disagree with the Dem platform? (Other liberals are welcome to jump in and do the same.)

If by " higher wages for working-class people" you mean a higher minimum wage, then I'll give you three. However, if you just mean "in general, it would be nice if they made more money.", well then, nobody is really against that.

As for me, I'd like some sort of consumption tax to replace the income tax, and I'd like to see a lot more nuclear in our energy basket. Not sure too many mainstream Dems would agree with those 2.

Care to list three major issues on which you disagree with the Dem platform? (Other liberals are welcome to jump in and do the same.)

We've already played this game. Despite a bunch of lefties talking about what they didn't like about the DNC and the left in general, nothing changed in the way the wingers saw lefties.

If by " higher wages for working-class people" you mean a higher minimum wage, then I'll give you three. However, if you just mean "in general, it would be nice if they made more money.", well then, nobody is really against that.

There are other and better ways to raise low-skilled wages than raising the minimum wage — e.g., a crackdown on illegal immigration and/or a substantial reduction in low-skilled legal and illegal immigration.

Disagree with Democratic plank on affirmative action, believe hate-crime laws should be tighter and narrower, less war on drugs, cut out tax incentives on school loans, no to minimum wage increases.