Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, February 01, 2013

Pink News: Curt Schilling: ‘Why the hell should being gay matter in professional sport?’

“Shilling”...nice touch.

Curt Shilling, a former pitcher with a career in baseball spanning 20-years, said in a series of tweets, that he did not understand why there was such an issue in professional sports with players coming out.

He also said that he had played alongside gay players, and that it did not matter, and that their performance on the pitch was the important issue.

Mr Shilling said: “I’ve never understood this ‘issue’ with gay players? Who cares? I know I played with some, their sexual orientation never had much to …To do with how they hit with RISP, or pitched in late and close situations, why the hell would what they do in the bedroom ever matter?”

Repoz Posted: February 01, 2013 at 02:19 PM | 2051 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: business

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 14 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›
   1301. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM (#4367506)
@1299--I'm amazed McGreer only gave into the justified anger that little. The quote isn't representative at all of the remaining eight pages, as doubtless you know. How do you suppose you'd feel if you'd been jailed 'just cuz' three times?

Or, as Hemingway said, you can make anyone sound like an idiot if you quote five lines (or a paragraph).
   1302. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 11, 2013 at 10:53 PM (#4367518)
Let's talk about alimony and what a crazy thing that is. We can all agree on that, right?

It totally depends on the circumstances of the marriage. If two lawyers get married, keep working after they tie the knot, and then divorce without having had children, then obviously it's insane.

If the wife quits school and works to put her husband through law school, then stays home to raise their children, then alimony on top of child support is totally right and just. The same would hold in reverse if the husband had been the one who'd quit school and stayed home to raise the kids. It only seems like "gender discrimination" because so few husbands are willing to sacrifice their careers for the sake of their wife's career.

And in the many more cases where the lines aren't as clearly drawn, then without knowing the particular circumstances, it's impossible to make any blanket statement about alimony, other than that people don't like paying it. I think we all understand that.
   1303. robinred Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:12 PM (#4367534)
Another outtake from McGreer:

In addition, this threat of jail, is primarily a white guy thing. Black fathers, since 1/3 of them have been in jail in their youth are not threatened as easily, therefore the judiciary and the mother’s of their children react differently. This is why you have heard in the news recently how at the federal level there is an attempt to help low-income fathers to get a job in order to pay their child support. Since black fathers buy an large are in this group, this is really an attempt to get them to pay child support since sending them to jail will not “magically” cause the money to appear. Also, I think there is an unspoken quota for white guys since there are more black guys in prison than white guys in relation to the numbers of white and black guys in the population. The irony is that based on my experience it may not prove wise to be a “good,” white guy staying out of trouble as a young man. I think it might be good for every young man before he gets married or/and has a child, to get himself thrown in jail on some misdemeanor, then the great psychological fear of jail will not cause him to go crazy years later as an older man and father.
   1304. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:16 PM (#4367541)
Classic McGreer!

Well, buy an large classic, at least.
   1305. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:17 PM (#4367543)
Since black fathers buy an large are in this group

WTF


   1306. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:30 PM (#4367552)
@1303: rr, he writes your excerpt as the result of a conversation he recounts with a fellow black prisoner who has been in the system before and for whom jail is not the threat it is to white prisoners new to the system, of whom McGreer was one. He very explicitly talks about that. Oh, and given your response, if you, Lassus, and little Mattie aren't white boys, I'll sponsor a BBRef page.

Why take it out of context like that, robin? His point was that jail is a much greater threat to people who haven't been in the system before--it's a thesis of his article, that the threat of jail is a psychological ploy, a shakedown, and he spends a couple of pages talking about that threat, noting the fear of jail, especially county jail, is largely without foundation.
   1307. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:34 PM (#4367555)
I could certainly be wrong, but I suspect that Lassus' 1305 is directed at Mr. McGreer's apparent lack of familiarity with the English language. I assume he's suffered some sort of brain damage (McGreer, not Lassus) &/or is prone to typing while impaired.
   1308. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:40 PM (#4367556)
"&/or" is the single, wimpiest hedge going. Chris Hitchens used to call it the only example he knew of, of "cowardly punctuation". Just so you know.
   1309. Lassus Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:48 PM (#4367559)
Thank you, gef. Jesus.
   1310. robinred Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:05 AM (#4367569)
Why take it out of context like that, robin?


People can read the whole thing if they like. I did. Your takeaway from it should be the dangers of generalizing off of anecdotal narratives, especially those accessed based on a targeted Google search in an attempt to score points in an internet debate revolving around a very complicated socioeconomic issue. Personal experience certainly has value in discussions like this, as it is one part of knowledge base, but it is only one part.


Oh, and given your response, if you, Lassus, and little Mattie aren't white boys, I'll sponsor a BBRef page.


You are not the guy to be calling people out on demographic limitations or self-awareness on this particular topic, Jack. And while I don't expect you to know this, I have in the past made many references, generally unwelcome ones, to the fact that BTF is floor-to-ceiling with professional-class white guys, myself included, mostly ages 25-49. When the topic is Michael Bourn's deal with the Indians, it doesn't matter. When the topic is one like this, it most definitely does.
   1311. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:23 AM (#4367575)
"The dangers"? What dangers? You fail to point any out. In fact, McGreer makes useful generalizations based on race and socioeconomic status. Is he incorrect in noting that young black men are in the system more often than young white men? Is he incorrect in noting that people who have been in prison, when prison is not close to what you see in films, are right to be less afraid of it, and therefore less susceptible to panicking when prison is the threat held over them?

As for a "targeted google search", do we find people multiply imprisoned for the inability to pay child support through UNtargeted google searches?

"When the topic is one like this, it most definitely does."
What most definitely does? This isn't clear.

Look, McGreer's not a fun guy to defend, but the people severely damaged by the inanity of the current system are unlikely to be practiced, college-educated writers. The guys trapped by the system may be unfamiliar with rhetorical techniques that make you sound more polished, more reasoned. Horror of horrors, they may even sound funny when they write. I still haven't seen a specific, reasoned objection to a single thing he's written, though. Just the usual shallow mockery

You are not the guy to be calling people out on demographic limitations or self-awareness on this particular topic, Jack.

Snotty and smearing... because?
   1312. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:24 AM (#4367576)
People can read the whole thing if they like. I did. Your takeaway from it should be the dangers of generalizing off of anecdotal narratives, especially those accessed based on a targeted Google search in an attempt to score points in an internet debate revolving around a very complicated socioeconomic issue. Personal experience certainly has value in discussions like this, as it is one part of knowledge base, but it is only one part.

That should serve as model for this entire discussion, which for the most part concerns losers pitted against losers, with children the grass underneath the two elephants' stomping feet. From a financial standpoint, nobody but lawyers "wins" from a divorce settlement.

The idea that many low income men get the shaft from our bureaucratic child support system is indisputable. But the idea that women are somehow profiting from this in any meaningful sense of the word is one of those fantasies that I'd expect from Ronald Reagan.

And to extrapolate from the legitimate grievances of some low income men who get caught between a rock and a hard place, and use their experiences as a way of kvetching about the plight of an upper middle class man who is forced to pay child support, is just pathetic.
   1313. Srul Itza At Home Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:30 AM (#4367579)
From a financial standpoint, nobody but lawyers "wins" from a divorce settlement.


You say that like it's a bad thing.
   1314. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:39 AM (#4367585)
1302:

When does a woman ever make a revocable decision not subject to some kind of restitution from the man? (Yet, she's equal.) A man has sex, that's it. He's in bondage for the meat of his life (LBJ's quip about balls and hearts and mind become public policy). A woman makes a decision to be a wife and mother with all that entails, positive and negative, but if things go bad for her, for her we got to make it somehow right. We excuse, we fix, we handicap, and we recompense. If your example, if he made his choice, then she made hers. She will have gotten her quid pro quo in the love that accrues from her children to her, a love the husband by working, by working forfeiting in her favor. But still that ain't enough. If she can't get along without foreign aid, maybe that should be factored in the custody decision. You better believe it would be if he didn't have the wherewithal--not to mention the likelihood of his getting alimony (or any other restitution) in general situations like that--that's only for comedy material.
   1315. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:39 AM (#4367586)
From a financial standpoint, nobody but lawyers "wins" from a divorce settlement.

You say that like it's a bad thing.


It'd be fine if I were married to a lawyeress. Then we could both clean up from other people's misery.
   1316. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM (#4367587)
The idea that many low income men get the shaft from our bureaucratic child support system is indisputable. But the idea that women are somehow profiting from this in any meaningful sense of the word is one of those fantasies that I'd expect from Ronald Reagan.


Nobody profits, but, still, we need to keep the paradigm in place?

   1317. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:45 AM (#4367590)
Now THIS is germane as all get out. Dubay v. Wells 506 F.3d 422 (6th Cir., 2007), where:

Issues involved in the case

The specific legal challenge in the case was based on whether Michigan's child support laws apply to men and women equally. If not, then it was argued that they violate Equal Protection. Jeffrey Cojocar, Dubay's attorney, maintained that Michigan does not force women to make child support payments for children that they do not want to parent, and accordingly, men should not have to either.[1]

The argument made by the state of Michigan, as well as by the National Organization for Women and the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, was that the needs of the child for support from both parents outweigh any of the circumstances surrounding the birth.

The argument for why the case paralleled the Roe v. Wade ruling by the United States Supreme Court was that in Roe v. Wade, it was decided that women have the ability to decline parenthood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. This case was claimed to be about giving men that same reproductive choice,[2] by offering the possibility of a "financial abortion".

Additional issues involved in the case were whether a man should have responsibility placed on him when his decisions were based on misleading information provided by someone else about her ability/intentions to have a child, and whether states pursue men too aggressively for child support payments due to the financial incentives they have to avoid having to provide public assistance.


The USCA, 6th, responded with all the je ne sais quoi of the PIVS gang:

"Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support."[5]


Given the issues explicitly raised, that has all the intellectual honesty of 'I'm sorry, you can't sue for malpractice, as the patient is dead' or, oh, say, 'If you want to be out on bond while appealing your support award on the ground you can't afford to pay it, you must post the amount of the bond in full, in cash, where the amount of the bond is set equal to the amount of support you assert you can't afford to pay.
   1318. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:50 AM (#4367592)
The idea that many low income men get the shaft from our bureaucratic child support system is indisputable. But the idea that women are somehow profiting from this in any meaningful sense of the word is one of those fantasies that I'd expect from Ronald Reagan.

Nobody profits, but, still, we need to keep the paradigm in place?


Morty, nothing I've said should be taken in defense of a system that in some cases---I have no idea how many---winds up leaving one partner, usually the man, virtually destitute as a result of payments which are nevertheless necessary for the child's well being. Unfortunately, all I've seen thrown out here for the most part is a lot of theoretical and rather abstract grievances on behalf of men, as opposed to any practical suggestions which would result in anything better than what we have now.

I have zero interest in seeing deadbeat dads thrown in jail, since all that does is to remove one source of potential income from the child's upbringing. But I also have zero interest in letting a man force a woman into a situation where she has to either abort or renounce any future support from the child's father. I think some of you guys have been taking The Playboy Philosophy a bit too much to heart.
   1319. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:52 AM (#4367593)
That should serve as model for this entire discussion, which for the most part concerns losers pitted against losers, with children the grass underneath the two elephants' stomping feet. From a financial standpoint, nobody but lawyers "wins" from a divorce settlement.


As a good liberal I can hit the sweet spot, of an expansive view of mens' civil rights, and of all childrens' right to well-funded social insurance programs (affordable in part because they'll be paying into those same programs as adults). In short, their access to those programs from conception means they are borrowing against their later repayment, rather like today's view of Social Security. But, I endorse by right, not by practicality.

It's ridiculous, that we can imagine 'permanent' tax cuts, but can't imagine permanent, universal health care.
   1320. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:54 AM (#4367594)
Unfortunately, all I've seen thrown out here for the most part is a lot of theoretical and rather abstract grievances on behalf of men, as opposed to any practical suggestions which would result in anything better than what we have now.


Why do you find that insufficient? Is it insufficient when it applies to the female--in this area of the law and policy or in other areas?
   1321. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:01 AM (#4367599)
I have zero interest in seeing deadbeat dads thrown in jail,...


Even a bright, open-minded guy like you persists in this.*** Serious question: are there any facts that could persuade you that the bulk of parents falling behind aren't 'deadbeats', the common definition of which is someone who routinely falls behind in his debts; irresponsible...

What would it take, do you think, to persuade sensible people to stop using that word generically to refer to any dad who falls behind in support?. And since this is such a loaded subject, I want to be clear that I mean no offense to you specifically. I think it's an important part of reframing the debate in the larger world, even if the sole point of that reframing is to keep parents who can't pay out of jail, which seems like a hell of a lot better way of getting money eventually to their kids.


***I may take more umbrage than some due to knowing four people pretty well who got behind (one was a woman). They all took their obligations seriously, even the guy who barely knew the woman who bore a child; they were all crucified directly and indirectly, and none of them were guilty of anything other than bad luck and bad economies.
   1322. Lassus Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:04 AM (#4367602)
Snotty and smearing... because?

Because on a desperate partisan hair trigger you mistakenly injected race into one white guy commenting on another white guy's crappy grammar. You could have at least admitted it after it was pointed out to you.
   1323. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:04 AM (#4367603)
Unfortunately, all I've seen thrown out here for the most part is a lot of theoretical and rather abstract grievances on behalf of men, as opposed to any practical suggestions which would result in anything better than what we have now.

Why do you find that insufficient? Is it insufficient when it applies to the female--in this area of the law and policy or in other areas?


When I see a lot of theoretical and abstract grievances expressed on behalf of women, I'll react the same way. In the area of childbearing and child raising, women and men are not equal in the same way that a male and a female lawyer or doctor are equals. To ignore that obvious fact, and to try to construct a legal standard of child support based on that denial, is not going to get me drawn into the conversation. I am not going to agree that men should ever have the right to force a woman to abort, and I've never going to agree that a woman's refusal to abort gets the man off the hook, UNLESS HER FINANCIAL STATUS MAKES HER INDEPENDENTLY ABLE TO SUPPORT THE CHILD ON HER OWN.

That last qualification addresses the specific issue of fairness and equality before the law that's germane to this discussion. Beyond that, complaints from men who want an opt-out when they're in a better position to pay than the woman are just whining, and they can howl at the ####### moon for all I care.
   1324. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:06 AM (#4367604)
I have zero interest in seeing deadbeat dads thrown in jail,...

Even a bright, open-minded guy like you persists in this.*** Serious question: are there any facts that could persuade you that the bulk of parents falling behind aren't 'deadbeats', the common definition of which is someone who routinely falls behind in his debts; irresponsible...


Point taken. I think you can see from my last comment that I'd exclude those men without the means to pay for child support from the category of "deadbeats."
   1325. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:13 AM (#4367605)
Unfortunately, all I've seen thrown out here for the most part is a lot of theoretical and rather abstract grievances on behalf of men, as opposed to any practical suggestions which would result in anything better than what we have now.


Well, I think the conversation has taken some interesting turns and plowed fertile ground, given the infancy of the concept, and the way the conversation stalled for hundreds of posts while the PIVS crowd, in response to issues of rights, contented themselves with repeating "Once it's in, he has no rights". Oh, and "you pro-deadbeat guys suck". I wasn't around for posts 250 to 1100, but even at that distance it was pretty offensive. A dozen different hypotheticals were brought up, but none were meaningfully addressed.

I mentioned going six years instead of 18, as a way of opening up the debate on current mores. No reply. I brought up a number of specific instances with which I was familiar, and heard back. "PIVS. Game over." I posted the specifics of one guys case, but haven't heard anything back beyond "he sucks".

In any cases, many of the grievances were entirely specific. In another sense, the grievance is very plain, and needs little elaboration, at least in the stating: "If men have no say in the decision, they should not be responsible for the outcome."

That's a guiding principle for a lot of ethical philosophy.

Anyway, let me ask, then, what direction do you think the conversation can still productively take?

   1326. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:25 AM (#4367608)
Jack, the only problem I have in responding to that at this point is that it's too late, and I need to get my beauty rest in order to have something in the tank for a pool tournament tomorrow night that often lasts well past midnight and is 45 minutes north of here. All of which is to say that I'll address your points tomorrow.
   1327. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:38 AM (#4367610)
It's easy to tell the players without the numbers on the names on their tunics. They are the ones who always will at some point bail, and haughtily refuse to discuss an issue that takes a turn they don't like (in a way they can't refute). Some things can only be discussed one way. At the littlest deviation, it always becomes all ad hominem all the time. Why do you hate women? You're a misogynist. Got it. (Talk about your incisive comebacks.) If there were women taking part here, I'll bet you dollars to donuts they'd be making innuendoes about people's manhood. I've never seen so many people argue like Joe Kehoskie who would ridicule Joe Kehoskie for so arguing.
   1328. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:40 AM (#4367613)
It should be recognized at the outset, and stated that the problem is probably unsolvable--at least to the extent where all parties would be satisfied, much less actually happy. That's the consequence of, first, life, and second, marriage and family breakups. It's been like that, one way or the other, always, since we've ascending from the tribal state. Simply having a judge issue a benediction doesn't change the awfulness of the predicament. But, in a real, objective sense, there is one party, the woman, who benefits more than the others. She gets a child she presumably wants, for whatever reasons, whether he wants or not, and she gets to ditch the father if she wants, before or after marriage, plus she gets to have a lien on him until the child is an adult. Even if she gets little money, it allows her to always have the moral upper hand. If there is a whip hand, she has it.

Our point is that all the institutional burdens are one way. The fetus, a nothing at first suddenly, mirabile dictu, is a person, a human. Not only that but in becoming a child, he somehow is now (although genetically there has been no change) an everything, and he has his protector and promoters. His agent, and we all know how easy it is for agents to abuse their agency. The mother gets her vig. She's the house; she's never without her recourses. She doesn’t lose, not to the extent the man does.

The man always only loses. (It's always man v. the universe (probably why most everything there is that's not natural is his creation.) It's as if by engaging in sex and impregnating a woman, a commitment is imposed on him that knows no bounds and is absolute. You wonder why he's always trekking out to frontiers, why he’s always wanting to get away from society and its bonds, even why he adopts "libertarian" attitudes--it's because he knows you're out to do him no good in some way. He’s not sure always how it’s going to come about, but he knows that somewhere along the way, the sky is going to fall on him. And he knows you ain't paying him for what you want from him. After childhood, and the woman can't use him as a pretext to hold the father in bondage (not yet, anyway), he becomes one of the expendables. He's just fodder. He only has uses. He's become a sort of fetus when he becomes an adult without any personhood or rights that are not heavily compromised every which way from Sunday. Unless you're the one percent. Because there is that one percent, it's as if all men are in the one percent. Most men know they are only this far away from riding the rails to nowhere.
   1329. robinred Posted: February 12, 2013 at 01:40 AM (#4367614)
What most definitely does? This isn't clear.


Demographic profiles. This isn't a discussion about sabermetrics. If you want to get serious about this topic, there are a couple of things you might consider looking at carefully: some of the feminist scholarship on this and related issues, and a mirror. And before you talk to me about tone, let me see you focus on the "white boys" and "little Mattie" comments and take some ownership of them.

As to "specific, reasoned objections", you are framing it wrong. McGreer is sharing his personal experiences, as sort of an advisory guide for guys who are in this situation. Here is how he leads it off:

At the encouragement of Dave Roberts, president of American Coalition of Fathers and Children, I wrote about my multiple experiences, 3 times, of being put in jail to help those threatened with jail on May 12, 2007.
Should you go to jail or not because you owe child support? Your decision will be made based on your resources and your fear and understanding what jail is like. To help you make that decision let me tell you about my experience of being through the Fairfax County jail three times on two findings of contempt.


This isn't a work of rigorous scholarship; it is an interconnected set of grassroots anecdotes about one blue-collar white guy, presented entirely based on his personal POV, in one county jail system, with one set of behavioral patterns, written on behalf of an advocacy organization, and designed for a specific audience. The excerpts that Itza and I posted are relevant, in that they are a window into how this guy thinks. Since he is relating his personal experiences, it is fair to evaluate that.

As to the issue itself, there are obviously issues with family court, and there are obviously times that everyone concerned, men, women and kids--get screwed, as Andy pointed out with his elephants analogy. I am not sure what to do about that, but I am fairly sure that your ideas on the subject are pretty unsophisticated.
   1330. Jay Z Posted: February 12, 2013 at 02:19 AM (#4367625)
I mentioned going six years instead of 18, as a way of opening up the debate on current mores. No reply. I brought up a number of specific instances with which I was familiar, and heard back. "PIVS. Game over." I posted the specifics of one guys case, but haven't heard anything back beyond "he sucks".


Why not 6 instead of 18? It won't play in the court of public opinion. What about the people in long-term marriages. What about the divorcees who are doing their best to manage? So this guy made a careless mistake, but he should essentially be rewarded for it by paying LESS for his child's upbringing than someone who is more responsible? That's how that looks to a large segment of the populace.

I don't want these births to happen. Abortion is not the solution for a lot of people, to put it up as a cure-all is a third rail. What are people doing generating kids out of a 5 week relationship. That just seems careless, to be honest. Was the orgasm worth it? There are so many other choices, it's so easy to avoid. If a guy is dead certain he doesn't want kids, a vasectomy seems like a good idea. If a guy wants kids later, but definitely doesn't want them with the woman he's sleeping with... I think people need to be cautious there.

I do not care about what kinds of sex people have, how many partners, how often. Please, please use multiple forms of birth control. But why can't we look at the social circumstances that are generating these births? Does that have to be off the table? The birth control failure rates have been mentioned. Then that's a risk that needs to be taken into account if the two people having sex aren't serious about each other long term. There are going to be the failures.

If I did happen to be in this situation, my advice would be to fight for joint custody. Then you have the most control. You're going to be paying anyway, might as well be running the budget. If it's hard to get joint custody for the man, then that's something that needs to be worked on.

   1331. robinred Posted: February 12, 2013 at 02:58 AM (#4367627)
In fact, McGreer makes useful generalizations based on race and socioeconomic status. Is he incorrect in noting that young black men are in the system more often than young white men? Is he incorrect in noting that people who have been in prison, when prison is not close to what you see in films, are right to be less afraid of it, and therefore less susceptible to panicking when prison is the threat held over them?


Obviously the first one is true, although I am not sure about one-third. McGreer might want to think about that and what it might mean.

As to the other two, I don't know, and I am pretty sure that neither you nor McGreer does, either. It might well be that people who have been in know how soul-sucking it is and really, really want to stay out as much as people who have never been in do. Probably varies from person to person and from system to system. It might be that in Fairfax County, VA, jail is easier for white guys than it is for white guys in other places, but McGreer doesn't know this, since he has only been locked up in Fairfax County. Here is McGreer talking about one of the times he was in:

Being in jail this time for a longer period of time, meant that one could get involved in classes, religious and educational. Besides weekly visitations, a roving library system, access to the law library and a regular physical exercise program, there was always a T.V. in every cell block. Wisely, in my opinion, it is cable and limited to educational and sports stations. But it can be better than even this. In some cases as was true the last time I was jailed for contempt for child support, inmates are housed in part of the jail that looks like a large college dormitory. At the county jail they have a dormitory like cell block, where those in the Work Release Program, are kept. In this dormitory like area of the jail inmates wear their own clothes, have dormitory like rooms and a large area to read, play games and write. If you have lived in a college dormitory then you know what I mean. The only difference you do not leave and come when you want to. In this program the inmates leave each day to go to their own jobs or work assigned to them and return in time for a free meal, dinner. This is all a vast improvement over being in a cell block day and night in prison garb. Sometimes I wish I could keep the same disciplined schedule that I was forced into while in jail.


   1332. robinred Posted: February 12, 2013 at 03:22 AM (#4367631)
Couple of more:

When the threat of jail, or even a few hours is so powerful that many fathers end up paying what the court says they owe within hours and days, the purpose of jail as threat is quite effective. In a sense, they make every father who says they did not have the money or had this or that problem and could not pay some or all of the child support and then they pay once they are in jail or the day they show up for their court hearing, it just makes liars out of them.


She realized that her contemplated action to having me jailed again would result in no money for her for a minimum of three months. That was a year and a half ago. Now as a result we work out my payments to her. I pay at a frequency best for us both and pay more than I have to during the parts of the year that I can and pay less than I am ordered on those parts of the year that I can’t. We communicate about it and work out something


I have practically no fear of going to jail again. Either she will not initiate action or I do not care anymore since anything jail could have taken away from me has been taken. I sometimes think that I should have a t-shirt made that says, “Deadbeat Dad and jailed, honk if you are one to,” or something like that.
   1333. robinred Posted: February 12, 2013 at 03:41 AM (#4367632)
Anyway, let me ask, then, what direction do you think the conversation can still productively take?


Specific, politically feasible changes to the family court system, rather than just talking about how badly men get screwed and how victimized they are by having to pay child support.
   1334. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 08:58 AM (#4367642)
But, in a real, objective sense, there is one party, the woman, who benefits more than the others. She gets a child she presumably wants, for whatever reasons, whether he wants or not, and she gets to ditch the father if she wants, before or after marriage, plus she gets to have a lien on him until the child is an adult. Even if she gets little money, it allows her to always have the moral upper hand. If there is a whip hand, she has it.


Maybe whiny low-fitness men should try electing more of their mewling ilk to office in order to influence the process. Obviously leaving these decisions to the sort of elected males who crafted the current system over the past century isn't working for these sorts of people.

The only true and fair resolution to this issue is the free, open, and unfettered sale of children on an open market. Everyone agrees that a newborn infant possesses some value. Items with inherent and widely recognized value are commodities, and to deny the sale of a commodity through a transparent market is an assault on economic liberty. There is no shortage of willing buyers for healthy young American infants in an American market and the number of willing shoppers would expand enormously if the "adoption" process were simplified to reflect its actual status as a financial transaction between willing buyers and willing sellers.
   1335. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 12, 2013 at 09:17 AM (#4367643)
They are the ones who always will at some point bail, and haughtily refuse to discuss an issue that takes a turn they don't like (in a way they can't refute).


No idea if this is addressed to me, but honestly this conversation is boring. Both sides have said everythign there is to say. How many times can I write "I think the child's needs takes precendence", and then watch as people whine about "how this one time the system was mean to this one guy who like was totally innocent - therefore the whole system is a sham."

I get both sides arguments. I am not impressed by the other side. As far as I can tell they don't care about the child, or would rather it freeload off of society and the safety net rather than have to pay for their own children. They think the mere fact a woman could abort the child means men should never have to pay for children they are fathers to, and I disagree.

Some say the system is broken based on anecdotes. This may be true. Reform may be needed. The principle of having the father contribute to the welfare of his child (and the mother as well, both parents mustr contribute) is not broken. And you disagree.

Like I said - boring. But others can feel free to chime in, it is a public discussion thread. I know I have talked about stuff boring to others. But don't cast stones at those who choose to "bail" and engage in ad hominem attacks.

EDIT: And I sign off on what both rr and yr said above.
   1336. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: February 12, 2013 at 09:19 AM (#4367645)
The only true and fair resolution to this issue is the free, open, and unfettered sale of children on an open market. Everyone agrees that a newborn infant possesses some value. Items with inherent and widely recognized value are commodities, and to deny the sale of a commodity through a transparent market is an assault on economic liberty. There is no shortage of willing buyers for healthy young American infants in an American market and the number of willing shoppers would expand enormously if the "adoption" process were simplified to reflect its actual status as a financial transaction between willing buyers and willing sellers.

And if there's ever a food shortage in the country, this could serve an additional purpose!
   1337. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:01 AM (#4367659)
But I also have zero interest in letting a man force a woman into a situation where she has to either abort or renounce any future support from the child's father. I think some of you guys have been taking The Playboy Philosophy a bit too much to heart.

Andy, can't you write plain English without the propaganda? (*) There's no "force" involved, and the woman is equally responsible. If the sex was forcible, that's rape, and an entirely different situation wherein the man should fry.

(*) Mostly unrelated aside: You gotta love white liberals ripping on white men for their grammar, as if they'd take on the arguments of any other demographic on the planet in the same way.
   1338. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4367670)
I have zero interest in seeing deadbeat dads thrown in jail,...

Even a bright, open-minded guy like you persists in this.


"Deadbeat dads" is the male equivalent of slut shaming.
   1339. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:25 AM (#4367671)
But I also have zero interest in letting a man force a woman into a situation where she has to either abort or renounce any future support from the child's father. I think some of you guys have been taking The Playboy Philosophy a bit too much to heart.


Andy, I'm going to put this bluntly. You're an old man, and your concepts of sexual freedom and sexual interactions between the sexes are outdated and archaic. As SBB points out @1337, if the sex is "forced" it's actually rape. Rapists shouldn't be paying child support; rapists should be in prison for rape. This entire conversation is predicated on consensual sex between adults. In consensual adult sex, no one forces the woman to do anything she doesn't want to do.
   1340. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:27 AM (#4367673)
Specific, politically feasible changes to the family court system, rather than just talking about how badly men get screwed and how victimized they are by having to pay child support.


You know what was wrong with the "I have a dream speech?" It didn't have politically feasible changes to the system. It was all pie in the sky call to "justice" and ####. Useless, really.
   1341. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:33 AM (#4367681)
Low-fitness males are the new negro. Fight the power my brothers!

*raises gloved fist*
   1342. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:43 AM (#4367685)
"&/or" is the single, wimpiest hedge going. Chris Hitchens used to call it the only example he knew of, of "cowardly punctuation". Just so you know.

It's done by lawyers in litigation as a combination CYA and cut off BS mechanism

If you ask for "A and B" and the other side only has "B" they may play cute and give you nothing
if you ask for "A or B" and they have both A and B, they'll give you one or the other but not both.


Outside of lawyers I have no idea why people use it in everyday life, I;'ll do it by mistake of habit every now and then
   1343. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM (#4367686)
Low-fitness males are the new negro. Fight the power my brothers!

*raises gloved fist*


Negroes were low-fitness! The Social Darwinian dynamic should just carry on with its work. Yes, I do believe there were some who held those views.
   1344. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:50 AM (#4367689)
Negroes were low-fitness!


Then why are they so good at basketball?
   1345. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:55 AM (#4367693)
Then why are they so good at basketball?

So they'd have enough money to pay child support?
   1346. BrianBrianson Posted: February 12, 2013 at 10:56 AM (#4367694)
As SBB points out @1337, if the sex is "forced" it's actually rape.


SBB is (as always) trolling, and the statement about forcing a pregnant woman to choose between abortion and renouncing child support has nothing to do with rape, but is predecated on consensual sex between adults. Consensual sex between adults can lead to unplanned pregnancies (or hell, planned pregnancies that are regretted before coming to term). It behooves you to read what Andy wrote before responding to it.
   1347. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:00 AM (#4367698)
Truly, the white man is the Jew of liberal fascism.
   1348. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:03 AM (#4367699)
1345:

It's your analogy. (It's an ancestral environment thing preserved by the evolved culture for its slyly amused condescension? My authority: Haven't you seen Airplane!?)

As to the former thread, this is pretty priceless:

Resigning Pope No Longer Has Strength to Lead the Church Backwards
   1349. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM (#4367701)
Morty, nothing I've said should be taken in defense of a system that in some cases---I have no idea how many---winds up leaving one partner, usually the man, virtually destitute as a result of payments which are nevertheless necessary for the child's well being


The Family Court system as a whole is far more likely to leave the woman "destitute" than the man.

I have zero interest in seeing deadbeat dads thrown in jail, since all that does is to remove one source of potential income from the child's upbringing.


I think it's unproductive and possibly done too often. Assuming that at least some of these anecdotes are true, family courts are not nearly rigorous enough in determining whether the guy actually has the money or the means to get the money...
Part of the problem is that the courts get lied to so much by litigants that they take the default position that the guys before them saying,. "Sorry your honor, but I lost my job..." become indistinguishable, the lazy judge will start jailing guys for contempt, and you know what, a significant chunk of the ""Sorry your honor, but I lost my job" suddenly can write checks that clear- unfortunately the guy who legitimately can't pay may sit and rot awhile.


   1350. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4367706)
   1351. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4367707)
The Family Court system as a whole is far more likely to leave the woman "destitute" than the man.


How so?
   1352. McCoy Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4367716)
I imagine the statement means the unemployed wife/mother won't be given enough in alimony/child support to not be "destitute" without having to actually go out and get a job.
   1353. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:24 AM (#4367717)
It behooves you to read what Andy wrote before responding to it.

He said the man was "forcing" the woman into a choice. That isn't accurate, and is in fact a retrograde and paternalistic view of women and freedom. The "choice" Andy bemoaned is in fact as much the woman's responsiblity as the man's, unless the sex itself was "forced."

There is (or at least was not long ago) a hard left view holding that sexual congress between men and women was inherently coercive and that "consent" was essentially impossible. I haven't understood Andy or anyone else to be adopting that position, but instead understand them to be approaching the issue with some combination of: (1) a retrograde, paternalistic view of sex wherein men are always the aggressors or seducers and therefore "benefit" more from it; and (2) the modern liberal tendency to always favor women over men, particularly white males, and to attribute calls of unfairness to "racism" or "sexism."

   1354. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:42 AM (#4367736)
Truly, the white man is the Jew of liberal fascism.


Cute, but off point as you well know.
   1355. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:48 AM (#4367743)
As SBB points out @1337, if the sex is "forced" it's actually rape.


SBB is (as always) trolling, and the statement about forcing a pregnant woman to choose between abortion and renouncing child support has nothing to do with rape, but is predecated on consensual sex between adults. Consensual sex between adults can lead to unplanned pregnancies (or hell, planned pregnancies that are regretted before coming to term). It behooves you to read what Andy wrote before responding to it.


He said the man was "forcing" the woman into a choice. That isn't accurate, and is in fact a retrograde and paternalistic view of women and freedom. The "choice" Andy bemoaned is in fact as much the woman's responsiblity as the man's, unless the sex itself was "forced."

This assumes that force can only take the form of either jail or gunpoint. The "choice" of either abort or be forced to raise a child without adequate financial support amounts to no choice at all. Your refusal to acknowledge this is what lies at the root of your problem.

There is (or at least was not long ago) a hard left view holding that sexual congress between men and women was inherently coercive and that "consent" was essentially impossible. I haven't understood Andy or anyone else to be adopting that position, but instead understand them to be approaching the issue with some combination of: (1) a retrograde, paternalistic view of sex wherein men are always the aggressors or seducers and therefore "benefit" more from it; and (2) the modern liberal tendency to always favor women over men, particularly white males, and to attribute calls of unfairness to "racism" or "sexism."

First, I've yet to bring up race in this discussion, so if you insist on dragging that into the conversation, please address someone else.

Second, I've repeatedly stated that child support should be the primary (not necessarily sole) responsibility of the person most able to afford it, regardless of whether it's the man or the woman. I've repeated this countless times, and yet every time it gets translated into "always favor[ing] women over men". Whether this is a deliberate misreading of what I've written, or merely a lack of reading comprehension, I can't say, but it's certainly not responsive to what I've written.


   1356. McCoy Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:53 AM (#4367751)
What if neither can afford it? Who goes to jail then?
   1357. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:54 AM (#4367752)
The "choice" of either abort or be forced to raise a child without adequate financial support amounts to no choice at all.

That may or not be true, but the woman is as responsible as the man for that "predicament." To this point, you haven't acknowledged that truism.

Second, I've repeatedly stated that child support should be the primary (not necessarily sole) responsibility of the person most able to afford it, regardless of whether it's the man or the woman. I've repeated this countless times, and yet every time it gets translated into "always favor[ing] women over men". Whether this is a deliberate misreading of what I've written, or merely a lack of reading comprehension, I can't say, but it's certainly not responsive to what I've written.

That, too, might be true, but is beside the point. The woman having the sole discretion over whether child support even becomes an issue is entirely unfair. You have yet to acknowlege this unfairness.

EDIT: And you have brought up race in this discussion, in post 885:

In my case it was more like 50 years ago, only with the tired arguments about "you're demanding special privileges for blacks" now replaced by whining about "you're demanding special privileges for women", with a few misogynists coming in off the bench to replace some of the reformed racists.

Thus comparing and attributing claims of unfairness to both racism and sexism.




   1358. formerly dp Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4367759)
EDIT: And I sign off on what both rr and yr said above.
I did not expect to see Bitter endorse an open market for the sale of infants. People surprise you sometimes.
   1359. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4367760)
Andy, I'm going to put this bluntly. You're an old man, and your concepts of sexual freedom and sexual interactions between the sexes are outdated and archaic.

Hugh Hefner is 86, and since he seems to be your particular role model in this discussion, I'll let you compare your liver spots to his.

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

What if neither can afford it? Who goes to jail then?

Right now the child then either suffers in the privacy of the mother's house (sometimes the father's), or becomes a ward of the state. Other countries seem to have found ways to provide a more humane way of dealing with this, but not us.
   1360. Ron J2 Posted: February 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM (#4367763)
#1333 I'd add that they don't have to be feasible now. A lot of eventually successful movements started with nothing more than a vision and a willingness to play the long game.

I'd be genuinely interested to hear from Dan or Rickey! or ... about the plan to eventual adoption. And utterly uninterested in whingeing about the current state of affairs.

   1361. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4367766)
SBB is (as always) trolling, and the statement about forcing a pregnant woman to choose between abortion and renouncing child support has nothing to do with rape, but is predecated on consensual sex between adults. Consensual sex between adults can lead to unplanned pregnancies (or hell, planned pregnancies that are regretted before coming to term). It behooves you to read what Andy wrote before responding to it.


Andy's presentation, and yours, is based on the premise that the woman was forced into sex, which is of course ridiculous since we're talking about consensual sex.

The lie here is the veiled presumption that the woman had something done to her that she had no say in which resulted in a pregnancy, rather than something she agreed to partake in.
   1362. McCoy Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4367767)
Right now the child then either suffers in the privacy of the mother's house (sometimes the father's), or becomes a ward of the state. Other countries seem to have found ways to provide a more humane way of dealing with this, but not us.

That is what you think is happening now but what is your opinion on the matter since the statement I was replying to was your opinion and not what was happening now.
   1363. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:03 PM (#4367774)
I'd be genuinely interested to hear from Dan or Rickey! or ... about the plan to eventual adoption.


I thought I'd laid out a three point plan earlier.

1. Provide as close to free as possible OTC morning after pills to the general public.
2. Create a legal framework by which any unplanned fathering can be opted out of by the man.
3. Create a more robust support system for the "it takes a village" crowd to support children of single mothers who choose to carry to term without the resources to support the child. (Consider removal of children from mothers who can't support them, even.)

Step 0, however, is breaking through the old man thinking around sexual freedom, wherein a man who impregnates a woman accidentally has "taken advantage of the poor girl" or something. Step 0 is moving the Overton window of thinking about sexual freedom to something more gender neutral.
   1364. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:03 PM (#4367775)
What if neither can afford it?


Sell the infant and use the proceeds to help support the next one.
   1365. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4367776)
Hugh Hefner is 86, and since he seems to be your particular role model in this discussion, I'll let you compare your liver spots to his.


Hugh Hefner is a retrograde misogynist, actually. At least, he certainly acts like it. The fact that this is your point of reference is telling, though.
   1366. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4367777)
The "choice" of either abort or be forced to raise a child without adequate financial support amounts to no choice at all.

That may or not be true, but the woman is as responsible as the man for that "predicament." To this point, you haven't acknowledged that truism.


That truism is certainly true as long as the sex was truly consensual, but that doesn't negate the situation in the womb, and it doesn't give the man the right to compel an abortion as a means of washing his hands of it.

Second, I've repeatedly stated that child support should be the primary (not necessarily sole) responsibility of the person most able to afford it, regardless of whether it's the man or the woman. I've repeated this countless times, and yet every time it gets translated into "always favor[ing] women over men". Whether this is a deliberate misreading of what I've written, or merely a lack of reading comprehension, I can't say, but it's certainly not responsive to what I've written.

That, too, might be true, but is beside the point. The woman having the sole discretion over whether child support even becomes an issue is entirely unfair. You have yet to acknowlege this unfairness.


IOW it's "unfair" that the man can't give the woman the choice of aborting or raising the child without adequate financial support. I think this discussion his tail.
   1367. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4367786)
That truism is certainly true as long as the sex was truly consensual, but that doesn't negate the situation in the womb, and it doesn't give the man the right to compel an abortion as a means of washing his hands of it.

What does "truly" mean there?

IOW it's "unfair" that the man can't give the woman the choice of aborting or raising the child without adequate financial support.

No, it's unfair that the woman has an opt-out entirely under her control but the man doesn't.

   1368. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4367787)
You know what was wrong with the "I have a dream speech?" It didn't have politically feasible changes to the system. It was all pie in the sky call to "justice" and ####. Useless, really.


And as we saw in the decades since, the problem with King's vision is that he didn't understand that people _don't_ want to be treated equally; quite to the contrary, they want special rights, not equal rights. This applies to every Victim group, not just African Americans. It applies to women, to homosexuals... We can see it in this very discussion, where people are arguing that a woman should have the special right to force a man to assume the responsibility for her sole decision to have the child. And why? Because she is a woman, and women have historically been treated worse than men in this country, dontchaknow. So that drives everything in the here and now.

Treating people equally means paying no special attention to them, and Victim groups get irritated when they feel people aren't paying any special attention to them.

   1369. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4367788)
Hugh Hefner is 86, and since he seems to be your particular role model in this discussion, I'll let you compare your liver spots to his.

Hugh Hefner is a retrograde misogynist, actually. At least, he certainly acts like it. The fact that this is your point of reference is telling, though.


My point of reference, your apparent point of inspiration. There's nothing about your attitude in this thread that wasn't contained in Hefner's "Playboy Philosophy" of 50 years ago. About the only difference I can see is that he wielded a pipe instead of a foam tomahawk.
   1370. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:11 PM (#4367792)
Truly, the white man is the Jew of liberal fascism.


Jonah Goldberg just called. He want...huh? 6 pounds of rocky road fudge delivered to his office? I have no idea what that was about.
   1371. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:12 PM (#4367793)
My point of reference, your apparent point of inspiration. There's nothing about your attitude in this thread that wasn't contained in Hefner's "Playboy Philosophy" of 50 years ago. About the only difference I can see is that he wielded a pipe instead of a foam tomahawk.


Your reading skills seem to be diminishing with age, then.
   1372. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:12 PM (#4367794)
That truism is certainly true as long as the sex was truly consensual, but that doesn't negate the situation in the womb, and it doesn't give the man the right to compel an abortion as a means of washing his hands of it.

What does "truly" mean there?


Since I don't want to get into subtleties that would only extend this tired discussion even further, let's just assume that all non-rape sex meets your standard.

IOW it's "unfair" that the man can't give the woman the choice of aborting or raising the child without adequate financial support.

No, it's unfair that the woman has an opt-out entirely under her control but the man doesn't.


Here, have a crying towel on the house. I truly feel your pain at not being born with a womb.
   1373. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:14 PM (#4367795)
That truism is certainly true as long as the sex was truly consensual,


?

but that doesn't negate the situation in the womb, and it doesn't give the man the right to compel an abortion as a means of washing his hands of it.


Once more: nobody is compelling an abortion. You fail to understand the meaning of force. This is evidenced by the fact that you think the woman was "forced" to have sex and also "forced" to have an abortion.

   1374. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:15 PM (#4367796)
My point of reference, your apparent point of inspiration. There's nothing about your attitude in this thread that wasn't contained in Hefner's "Playboy Philosophy" of 50 years ago. About the only difference I can see is that he wielded a pipe instead of a foam tomahawk.

Your reading skills seem to be diminishing with age, then.


Sam, any 20 year old can understand what you've been saying. Hefner just could afford a better editor.
   1375. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:16 PM (#4367797)
Treating people equally means paying no special attention to them, and Victim groups get irritated when they feel people aren't paying any special attention to them.


How to handle the instances where one group empirically gets "special attention" (e.g. men getting paid more than women for the same position), then?
   1376. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:16 PM (#4367798)
Here, have a crying towel on the house. I truly feel your pain at not being born with a womb.


And that's essentially your justification: the woman is a woman and the man is a man.

   1377. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:17 PM (#4367800)
How to handle the instances where one group empirically gets "special attention" (e.g. men getting paid more than women for the same position), then?


I don't want to go all Lassus here - I rarely ask for a cite as people know - but, do you have a cite for this? I'd be happy to read the literature you can point me to.

Otherwise, I don't accept your premise.
   1378. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4367803)
How to handle the instances where one group empirically gets "special attention" (e.g. men getting paid more than women for the same position), then?

You do know that most all of these discrepancies are explainable by years of experience? i.e. women take time out of the labor force to raise children, and that depresses their earnings.
   1379. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4367805)
Once more: nobody is compelling an abortion.


In the absence of proper market access for infant sales what other options are left for destitute women? Freeloading off the hardworking RDP's of the world? I think the living would envy the dead.

Ray, help me out, surely you have no qualms about free market infant sales as part of a direct transaction between birth mother and purchaser, yes?
   1380. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM (#4367806)
but that doesn't negate the situation in the womb, and it doesn't give the man the right to compel an abortion as a means of washing his hands of it.

Once more: nobody is compelling an abortion. You fail to understand the meaning of force.


Ray, your concept of force is limited to a person sticking a gun in your face, a stronger person threatening you with bodily harm, or the threat of jail. I'm not surprised that you can't understand anything beyond that.

This is evidenced by the fact that you think the woman was "forced" to have sex

And when have I ever said that? Please cite one instance on any thread, any time.

and also "forced" to have an abortion.

She's not forced to have an abortion, either, but unless she wants to raise the child without adequate support, she's forced to choose between the proverbial rock and a hard place. You seem to find that quite reasonable, although I'm sure you'll later find cause to whine when the government starts subsidizing the child's flat screen TV.
   1381. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:25 PM (#4367810)
She's not forced to have an abortion, either, but unless she wants to raise the child without adequate support, she's forced to choose between the proverbial rock and a hard place.


Yes. Welcome to the world. Sometimes you have to make hard choices and accept the consequences of your actions. Is it your esteemed position that women are too much of wilting flowers to be asked to make such stressful decisions? Should we get them a fainting couch or something?
   1382. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM (#4367813)
Here, have a crying towel on the house. I truly feel your pain at not being born with a womb.

And that's essentially your justification: the woman is a woman and the man is a man.


Glad to see that by your late 30's this has finally dawned upon you. They say that walking a mile begins with the first step. Perhaps you'll next discover which one of those two sexes bears the entire brunt of gestation and childbirth, and we can then proceed from there.
   1383. BrianBrianson Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM (#4367814)
Morty, nothing I've said should be taken in defense of a system that in some cases---I have no idea how many---winds up leaving one partner, usually the man, virtually destitute as a result of payments which are nevertheless necessary for the child's well being. Unfortunately, all I've seen thrown out here for the most part is a lot of theoretical and rather abstract grievances on behalf of men, as opposed to any practical suggestions which would result in anything better than what we have now.


Nobody's addressing it because they more or less can't. There isn't a good answer - running two half-sized households costs more than running one full sized household, and thus both partners coming out of a divorce are going to be poorer (in lifestyle). And they'll have to take on additional chore-load (since it doesn't scale linearly either). There's no way around it - by forming a mini-society, there were generating more wealth than the sum of the wealth they generated as individuals (this statement is true, though the phrasing is obviously pure trolling), by breaking it up, the wealth dissappears - they have to become poorer.

That said, if you see the system usually leaving men the one destitute, you probably know more men than women. Women end up in a terrible way all the time too.
   1384. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:27 PM (#4367816)
Yes. Welcome to the world.


Your world looks suspiciously like China. I don't think compelling women to have abortions when they'd rather not is a good idea, but of course I oppose pre-abortion untrasound rape too. I'm a sensitive guy like that.
   1385. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4367817)
Ray, your concept of force is limited to a person sticking a gun in your face, a stronger person threatening you with bodily harm, or the threat of jail. I'm not surprised that you can't understand anything beyond that.

And yours includes someone being faced with a tough life decision based on a predicament for which they're responsible.
   1386. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4367818)
Yes. Welcome to the world. Sometimes you have to make hard choices and accept the consequences of your actions. Is it your esteemed position that women are too much of wilting flowers to be asked to make such stressful decisions? Should we get them a fainting couch or something?

Nah, I'll just take that wailing wall that you've been whining on and let them stand up and prove their toughness. Poor Sam!
   1387. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4367819)
Perhaps you'll next discover which one of those two sexes bears the entire brunt of gestation and childbirth, and we can then proceed from there.

Women have been given the freedom to negate and avoid this "brunt." Have you not noticed?
   1388. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4367822)
You do know that most all of these discrepancies are explainable by years of experience? i.e. women take time out of the labor force to raise children, and that depresses their earnings.


That's my understanding, yes. Men are in the workforce more than women are due to... choices that people make... which leads to the perceived discrepancy. But the discrepancy is not based on discrimination.

I suppose we could eliminate the discrepancy by forcing women to work. Should that be the solution to this non-existant problem?
   1389. Poulanc Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4367823)
Yes. Welcome to the world. Sometimes you have to make hard choices and accept the consequences of your actions.



So you are saying... "tough titty"?
   1390. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:32 PM (#4367824)
Morty, nothing I've said should be taken in defense of a system that in some cases---I have no idea how many---winds up leaving one partner, usually the man, virtually destitute as a result of payments which are nevertheless necessary for the child's well being. Unfortunately, all I've seen thrown out here for the most part is a lot of theoretical and rather abstract grievances on behalf of men, as opposed to any practical suggestions which would result in anything better than what we have now.

Nobody's addressing it because they more or less can't. There isn't a good answer - running two half-sized households costs more than running one full sized household, and thus both partners coming out of a divorce are going to be poorer (in lifestyle). And they'll have to take on additional chore-load (since it doesn't scale linearly either). There's no way around it - by forming a mini-society, there were generating more wealth than the sum of the wealth they generated as individuals (this statement is true, though the phrasing is obviously pure trolling), by breaking it up, the wealth dissappears - they have to become poorer.

That said, if you see the system usually leaving men the one destitute, you probably know more men than women. Women end up in a terrible way all the time too.


Thank you, Brian, for introducing a touch of reality to the discussion. Not that any of these pidgin-Alpha males are much interested in anything like that.
   1391. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:34 PM (#4367827)
Nah, I'll just take that wailing wall that you've been whining on and let them stand up and prove their toughness. Poor Sam!


Snarks and Snides like this abound in this discussion, and they come from one side only. If we spoke of women like this, whining about their status wrt pregnancy and abortion, these same people would jump on it with hobnail booths. Yet, for the male it always comes down to if a man isn't willing to eat #### he ain't a man.
   1392. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:36 PM (#4367832)
Yes. Welcome to the world. Sometimes you have to make hard choices and accept the consequences of your actions. Is it your esteemed position that women are too much of wilting flowers to be asked to make such stressful decisions? Should we get them a fainting couch or something?

Then why do you want to let the men off scot-free? Why don't they have to accept the consequences?

Your argument applies equally to men. If you don't want the potential consequences of a child, don't engage in coitus with a woman.
   1393. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:37 PM (#4367833)
You know what was wrong with the "I have a dream speech?" It didn't have politically feasible changes to the system. It was all pie in the sky call to "justice" and ####. Useless, really.

And as we saw in the decades since, the problem with King's vision is that he didn't understand that people _don't_ want to be treated equally; quite to the contrary, they want special rights, not equal rights. This applies to every Victim group, not just African Americans. It applies to women, to homosexuals... We can see it in this very discussion, where people are arguing that a woman should have the special right to force a man to assume the responsibility for her sole decision to have the child. And why? Because she is a woman, and women have historically been treated worse than men in this country, dontchaknow. So that drives everything in the here and now.

Treating people equally means paying no special attention to them, and Victim groups get irritated when they feel people aren't paying any special attention to them.


Reposted for the truth, which is of course ignored because ad hominem and innuendo makes us feel so much better--and what makes you feel better is self-proving.
   1394. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:38 PM (#4367834)
That said, if you see the system usually leaving men the one destitute, you probably know more men than women. Women end up in a terrible way all the time too.

Exactly. The empirical evidence is that divorce leaves women poorer and men richer. Women and children bear more than 100% of the efficiency lost by moving to two households.
   1395. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4367836)
Yes. Welcome to the world. Sometimes you have to make hard choices and accept the consequences of your actions.

So you are saying... "tough titty"?


In the woman's situation there is a choice.

In the man's situation there is not.

See how this works?
   1396. Poulanc Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:41 PM (#4367838)

In the woman's situation there is a choice.

In the man's situation there is not.

See how this works?


So you are bothered because you don't get to make the exact same choice as the woman?
   1397. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:43 PM (#4367841)
In the woman's situation there is a choice.

In the man's situation there is not.

See how this works?


Of course the man has a choice. Don't engage in coitus with fertile women if you're not willing to risk fathering a child.
   1398. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:44 PM (#4367842)
Why shouldn't he be bothered that he is not granted equal access to a complementary choice?

   1399. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4367844)
How to handle the instances where one group empirically gets "special attention" (e.g. men getting paid more than women for the same position), then?


I don't want to go all Lassus here - I rarely ask for a cite as people know - but, do you have a cite for this? I'd be happy to read the literature you can point me to.

Otherwise, I don't accept your premise.


Alas, not offhand.

Is the implication that there *are* no such empirical examples of "special attention"?
   1400. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 12, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4367845)
Yes. Welcome to the world. Sometimes you have to make hard choices and accept the consequences of your actions. Is it your esteemed position that women are too much of wilting flowers to be asked to make such stressful decisions? Should we get them a fainting couch or something?

Then why do you want to let the men off scot-free? Why don't they have to accept the consequences?


Because they didn't make the decision to proceed with the pregnancy.

There is an intervening decision to be made after pregnancy, a decision which results in one of two states: a child or no child. The intervening decision makes the preceding choice to engage in sex irrelevant since it can make the "consequences" disappear. If the woman has the sole power to make the intervening decision, she should accept the sole responsibility of the "consequences" of that decision.

Page 14 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JE (Jason)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-21-2014
(55 - 11:54pm, Aug 21)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogMegdal: Humble shortstop Marty Marion should be in Hall contention
(51 - 11:54pm, Aug 21)
Last: DanG

Newsblog10 episodes of ‘The Simpsons’ every sports fan needs to watch
(22 - 11:53pm, Aug 21)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(4805 - 11:47pm, Aug 21)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals might actually know what they are doing
(81 - 11:47pm, Aug 21)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogDowney: Let Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame already
(24 - 11:45pm, Aug 21)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogAngels Acquire Gordon Beckham
(17 - 11:44pm, Aug 21)
Last: The Kentucky Gentleman, Mark Edward

NewsblogGrantland: The Top Prospect Progress Poll.
(4 - 11:41pm, Aug 21)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(483 - 11:11pm, Aug 21)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(57 - 10:56pm, Aug 21)
Last: Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge

NewsblogCubs place struggling Edwin Jackson on the disabled list
(46 - 10:32pm, Aug 21)
Last: Brian C

NewsblogFG: Brian McCann Probably Couldn’t Be Given Away For Free
(25 - 10:10pm, Aug 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJapan Today: Fanatic fans oblivious to sleazy side of Koshien high school baseball
(6 - 9:51pm, Aug 21)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogCurt Schilling Reveals He Was Diagnosed With Mouth Cancer in February, Believes Chewing Tobacco Was the Cause
(39 - 9:50pm, Aug 21)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

NewsblogPhillies have decisions to make heading into '15
(6 - 9:18pm, Aug 21)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 1.2344 seconds
52 querie(s) executed