User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7359 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
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.
Yes, she depended on his earning power, and he depended on her caregiving efforts. But she’s better off to—she got to be with her children. That’s not taken from her. She got to bond in a way that a man working all the time never can. She gets to do that, she gets to keep doing that, and then you pay her for her loss of income. However, he doesn’t get recompensed for his lost of a psychological connection. There’s little equivalency. She’s win-win; he’s lose-lose. He loses money, he lost an emotional bond with the children, a situation that the law perpetuates. Moreover, the law as it is, gives her the whip hand in post-divorce matters.
Among the blind and mute, the merely blind is king, I guess.
It does absolutely nothing to address the issues of rights and responsibilities, which is the core of the issue.
No it's not. It's about recognizing the woman has the rights in this instance, and thus should own the responsibilities. It's about not punishing men, for poor decisions of others.
The overgrown adolescents comprising the "Men's Rights" movement (and their defenders) aren't interested in any actual solutions to the issue beyond absolving themselves of any responsibility for supporting their offspring. How many viable and sensible solutions have been offered on this thread to their silence? Insurance (1452), market commodification of the unwanted offspring (1433), non-invasive social pressure (1458), and a perfectly sensible Solomonic solution from the Swedish Chef (1447) and all they want to talk about is abortions for some, little copies of "Atlas Shrugged" for others. It's no wonder the movement is consigned to the fringes and appeals primarily to low-status males.
Can someone pitch these ideas on the next "Shark Tank"?
I am at work and can't manage it, but can someone find figures for the percentage of births that came about as a result of something other than sex for the past 5 years or so?
Wrong again.
The line is -- You can leave in a taxi. If you can't leave in a taxi, you can leave in a huff. If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and huff.
Not a huff and half. Jeez. That totally steps on the line.
########. This statement verifies that you're just out to troll. Not that anyone should be surprised. At least attempt to learn something about humanity instead of this reductionist condemnatory nonsense.
If the economy grows and per capita income grows as population grows, it's self-evident.
If people consumed more than they produced, the world could not be richer today with 6 billion people than it was 100 years ago with 2 billion.
Except she doesn't get compensated fully. Women's standards of living fall post-divorce, by something like one-third. See article I posted last page.
Mens' standard's of living, on the other hand, rise. Post-divorce, men reallocate their income from their children to themselves.
But in truth, if anyone deserved trolling it's people suggesting it is more just for other taxpayers to support a man's child (or for the child to do without) than for him to support it.
I haven't even started trolling this thread. I'm interested in actual, practical solutions that ensure child welfare, not sad-sacking cries of victimhood and enslavement at the talons of mendacious sluts. "I shouldn't havta if I don't wanna" is the battlecry of a putz.
What is this "humanity" you speak of, earth man?
I guess if we have vast, untapped resources that we can and will tap into, maybe you're right. But the resources of the planet in general are finite.
Not to mention that *access* to resources is an incredible problem for many people. We're always talking about job creation--which is faster: the rate of job creation or the birth rate?
If you're interested in "actual" anything, you wouldn't condemn the entire men's rights movement in the heavily-valenced way that you just did.
How about women who can't afford kids not getting themselves pregnant?
And the RU-486 and the fancy cupcakes, of course.
Not to mention that *access* to resources is an incredible problem for many people. We're always talking about job creation--which is faster: the rate of job creation or the birth rate?
We seem to have those resources. The ingenuity of man to find and harvest resources has constantly outstripped the growth of population since the industrial revolution began.
Actual critical consideration of a victimology cult is perfectly consistent with my desire for honest solutions. "Men's Rights" cultists join "Oppressed Christians" as narcissistic circle jerks for rubes who can't fathom a society that precludes them from doing whatever they want without reproach. At least the "White Rights" movement promotes Doc Martin boots, which are still comfy and stylist.
They could. Anyone who wants to insure against having to pay for child support after having sex could buy it and child support payments would come from the pool. Of course the insurance companies would have riders and such. For example I don't think it would address custody issues or anythign else, and the woman's choice to carry to term is still her choice. But either party could pay and if later they would normally be stuck paying child support the unsurance would cover it.
The reason I would be OK with it, because it is functionally the same from the child's poitn of view. If dad (or Mom) doesn't want to pay, doesn't want to live up to what I feel is there moral responsbility to look after thier progeny then no law can make them. It can make sure the child is supported financially at least and the insurance does that.
Of course no one would likely buy such insurance, since we are talking about a group that (in aggregate) has issues using simple birth control correctly, but I have no moral issue with the insurance scheme since it places the burden for supporting the child with the parents as a first line of support, which is where it belongs and (edit) of course sees to the child's welfare.
That strikes you as a practical solution? It's a fun little philosophical musing but I doubt anyone considers it of any value in addressing the issue. I'd co-sign on "stupid people shouldn't breed" and yet it occurs to me that they do regardless of external influence.
Combined with the proposals on father buy-in pre-viability, yes. Why woudn't it? It's eminently practical and eminently fair.
Bringing the product of the breeding of two stupid people (your words) to the world, one of whom doesn't want it, the other of whom can't afford it isn't exactly a prescription for child welfare utopia.
True. But see below
Nonsense. We're talking what is already the status quo. You haven't made a remotely compelling case for changing it. As I've said already, "Tough" is a perfectly adequate response to, "not fair to the father"
You could have strengthened your argument by adding "titty."
Especially when sympathy for the father gets nothing but abuse.
I'd strongly prefer that any child that comes into the world is expected and provided for, but I don't like the necessary framework to make it work.
Well that certainly mirrors the experience of those actually advocating for paternal rights.
Fair, but it's better to prevent the child from becoming an issue to have to be taken care of in the first place.
What was the percent chance of adaption in the foreseeable future when they gathered at Seneca Falls?
This is simply false. My stance is clearly aimed at reducing the number of unwanted and under cared for children in the world.
The child can be cared for by the mother, and if necessary through the social safety net, same as any other child with only one available parent. Society, at this point, is more invested and interested in seeing the child supported, and raised to becoming a productive member of society, than the disinterested father is.
As I said, I'd actually support something like this if/when the tech is available. Taking the accidental pregnancy out of the equation entirely - making parenthood an opt-in process rather than an opt-out process - would be the best of all possible solutions. And I have no problem having this happen to boys/men. In fact, given the current state of choice/rights distribution, it's probably better if it were men who got the RISUG treatment along with their elementary school vaccines. Treat unwanted pregnancy the same way you treat mumps and measles. That way any guy that impregnates a woman has done so clearly by choice.
Einstein's parents were no Einsteins...well, not in the figurative sense. Furthermore the offspring of geniuses tend toward mediocrity.
Fair enough. So what's the plan to move forward? As I've said, your proposed solution is a package deal that if adopted in its entirety would be better for all concerned. But every component part is a tough sell.
I'm sure you think so, but there's simply no evidence that potentially loading the burden on to the mother will do so.
And I honestly stand by my parsing of the previous post(s). "Let's punish a bad decision" seems pretty clear to me.
Snarks and Snides like this abound in this discussion, and they come from one side only.
Don't ever change, Morty. I don't know what we'd do without your Victimology 101 seminars.
What Sam accused you of, correctly or not, is not name-calling. He gave you a reason, a basis, why he discounts your view on a particular matter.
Uh, huh, and if I were to state that my "reason" for discounting everything you're saying is because you're an old white male yourself, I suppose that you'd accept that without question.
There’s substance to what Sam said,
Right, just like there's "substance", and it's "not name-calling", to pointing out that Sam's a fat, white southern lawyer as a way of discrediting his POV. Of course that juvenile level of "substance" contributes nothing to anything, no matter who's dishing it out.
Bottom line is that we've got conflicting premises at work here, and there's no way to "prove" either of them is correct other than by appealing to the axioms that underlie them. I can't "refute" your idea that males are somehow always the victims in child support cases any more than I can make you accept my idea of letting the man and woman's relative economic status determine who pays for the bulk of child support, as opposed to determining it purely on the basis of who has the final choice to abort.
I am neither fat nor a lawyer.
Do I have to have one completed before 5:00 eastern? What was the plan to move forward after Stonewall?
If (like Rickey!) you're arguing that it should be, fine. The day that's true is the day I'll sign on to allowing fathers to opt out of support.
But you don't deny that you are white and southern.
I'll bite: What's wrong with it as a safety net, especially now that it comes with Obamacare?
But do you play one on TV?
Comment fail. Wasn't talking to you.
And yet we have no problem forcing that kid to live in poverty simply because his/her parents are poor.
As a taxpayer I would rather not endorse father freeloading on my dime. I have only had unprotected sex twice in my life and I have two children. Pay attention to your sperm people. It is not that hard to avoid have unwanted progeny. And if you do you (plural) can pay for it, with society as a backstop.
In LMB future society, well things are different in the future, but uterine replicators and such make this a totally different discussion, closer to the one Sam wants to have.
Note: If you like sci fi read Bujold's stuff (well the sharing knife series - not sure that is what it was called - is terrible, but almost everythign else is excellent).
Yes. Obviously. Or perhaps I don't see why I should have pay for insurance for something that I have no say in. If anybody should be paying for insurance it is women.
I believe the same thing. The difference is that you guys don't want to touch the "freedoms" of women while you're all to ready to serve up the freedoms of men.
If a person has an unwanted pregnancy and they cannot afford to raise the child they should either abort the fetus or give the child up for adoption.
I buy car insurance, but I have no say if some one else hits me. I buy health insurance because I might get a disease. One buys insurance to protect from things. It is risk pooling. If you want to have sex and not live under the terrible threat of child support then how about child support insurance?
And nothing in it restricts it to just men. As discussed both men and women can pay child support. Under my plan (which again for the record no one would buy in the real world) both could purchase it.
Is there any circumstance under which a man should have to pay support for his child? Any at all? Or should raising a child always be the responsibility of the mother only?
EDIT: Feel free to address if woman have any responsiblity, or does no parent ever have a responsbility to their child?
There can't be a market for something like that because then the insurance companies would price it differently for people who f&ck; less and are more intelligent about birth control. At which point, insurance would become too expensive for some people, the insurance companies would ask invasive questions, and "progressives" would start b^tching about how "unfair" it all was.
Where he agrees to have it. In a large majority of term births, he does.
Hey I am on record as saying it won't work, I am asking if it addresses the men's rights concerns.
Or how about having a say on whether or not you have a child? Gosh, we can't have that now can we?
There are plenty of circumstances under which a man should have to pay support. Every marriage contract should come with language that states that both parties are responsible for any children conceived unless otherwise stipulated. If the father wants custody or partial custody he should have to pay support at a level commensurate with his custody. If a father is informed of the pregnancy and does not declare his wants or declares that he wants the child he should have to pay support.
If it doesn't, that's an issue with the safety net, and you should attempt to fix that, rather than throwing the rights of other people away. There are currently many single parents who are actually getting by with only that level of support already. If the child with a disinterested father is having his/her rights violated, then so are they.
You can't coherently argue, that child A has a RIGHT to x, and child B has a right to x+y. It's fundamentally opposed to any current understanding of rights. Rights, by definition, have to be equal for everybody.
It's certainly not impossible for a single woman to raise a child without the support of the father. My mother managed (though my father didn't leave until all 4 kids were old enough to go to school. It's much tougher when the kids aren't old enough for school) and so did my sister. Both had completed their education and both had good jobs (both teachers), but that's certainly far from the norm.
Will the kids starve under the current system? No. But that's aiming too low. And currently we (that is society) has decided that the father will (where possible) make up the difference.
Now if you're arguing that the current setup -- a percentage of income -- could stand to be overhauled, separate discussion and I'm on board.
Technically finite. But extremely, massively large.
The only resource of consequence volume within the earths' crust and low atmosphere and solar energy impinging on the surface. Not including fissionables yet to be mined, and thermal energy currently stored as magma/molten iron in the planetary core. Or nuclear fusion (non-solar).
Probably enough to support (in theory) several more orders of magnitude increase in population.
/Blatant hijack attempt.
And yet clearly the fathers in most cases can't afford to make up the difference yet we keep on hitting them up for it and sending them to jail because they can't pay while we pat the mother on the head and say, "there, there".
Why shouldn't they be able to sell the infant at whatever price the market will bear? Adoption is expensive and the mother sees precious little of the proceeds. Why should we tolerate a system designed as a sop for rapacious lawyers and their middleman stooges?
I was about to post something similar when Sam did. So I will add on - may as well put in your fancy egg/sperm genetic screening technology with your babby license. We all have ###### up genes, but probably have some gametes that combine the best of each allele.
Why shouldn't they indeed.
an honor system. great. no guy would ever take advantage of having an out when he gets a woman pregnant.
any of you stalwarts ever raised a child by yourself? just curious. if the situation was reversed, child support from both parents would be sacred.
you remind me of those players who got chewed out by frank robinson on the field when they screwed up the infield fly rule.
i'd desert this stupid thread, but i just want to mention that the LA times ran an article breaking down the makeup of the college of cardinals, which is something i wondered about earlier.
the college is made up as follows, with number of cardinals by region:
europe 61
latin america 19
north america 14 (US 11)
africa 11
asia 11
oceania 1
now that they need a 2/3 majority (benedict implemented that after his election, crafty so and so) any cardinal from a non european area is going to have to have broad support from other regions. seems a tall order. because they seem the most likely to get european support, i think a south american might have a good shot, especially odilo scherer or leonardo sandri.
I am neither fat nor a lawyer.
Then you either need another picture than the one that got posted here a while back, or you need a different dictionary.
Sorry about the lawyer accusation, though, as if it's not true then that's a low blow and I sincerely apologize.
And BTW don't get me wrong. Some of my best friends are fat white Southerners. Love them accents, if not their nasty idea of what constitutes barbecue.
Honor system? The system would be giving men the exact same rights a woman has. Are you implying that women are taking advantage of that right?
He actually restored the long-time tradition. JP II had changed it to a simple majority after 12 days of deadlock, but Benedict thought it was wrong for a slim majority to be able to force a choice through by delaying.
Found a site with some useful numbers.
62% of custodial mothers do not receive child support. 75% of those either have not asked for it (or have accepted some other form of financial support -- 20% have done so) 7% of fathers evade (in some way) child support orders. Roughly half of those simply can't be located.
Rather than link to the analysis, I'm just going to post the data source. Granted, it's 20 years old, but I don't think the numbers have changed a lot. (Sources for data: GAO/HRD-92-39FS, January 9, 1992, and DHHS Greenbook, chapter 11)
And yeah, sign me up with those who feel that putting a guy in jail (or refusing to renew his license) for failing to meet his support payments is seriously wrong-headed.
Also, if only just over 1/3 of custodial mothers need (or want) support then perhaps the safety net is closer to being adequate than I had thought. Surprises mte that the percentage of women not getting any support is so high.
Let me rephrase it. Most of the unpaid money is from fathers who cannot afford to make the payments.
Especially when there are other market-oriented methods of ensuring proper payment is extracted. Most deadbeats surely have two kidneys, yards of skin, and extraneous hunks of liver that could be harvested and sold on a free market for the benefit of sick patients, with the profits then going to pay his obligations to his children.
Or maybe they just know they can't get money out of the father b/c he never works (on the books at least).
I'll take my chances against your skinny ass, old man.
And #1570 Or are ignorant of their options or ...
My favorite bit from "The Meaning of Life" is "Every Sperm is Sacred" (perfectly done pastiche of "Consider Yourself")
Nah, from the standpoint of an Institutional Review Board the provenance of the children doesn't matter, they're still subject to FDA regulations overseeing clinical trials as outlined in 21 CFR 50.54.
And yet if they could just sell one kidney I'd wager that number would plummet to under 5%.
I'll take my chances against your skinny ass, old man.
Sorry, I'm not into jello wrestling or duels with foam tomahawks. But if you really want a showdown there's always Kevin or Good Face.
I still dont get why the guy quit the service 4 years short of when he would have received his pension? Why should we feel sorry for someone who voluntarily quits?
You are forgetting the fact that many women do get support- informally without a court order - there are guys who do pay child support voluntarily- maybe they figure I might as well pay X, because otherwise I'll get sued, pay a lawyer, and still pay X or more.
Or the woman has money, or the woman has married someone with money, or know the father has no money and has no interest in effing with him for no reason (novel idea, not all women are gold digging ####s)
or the woman wants nothing to do with the ex, doesn't want him in her or the kids life, is afraid of him, doesn't want to give him a reason/excuse to be involved
I've seen a dozen concrete grievances in the last 150 posts. I've seen practice tied to theory. I wondered why 6 years wasn't more appropriate than 18, or 21. I've brought up case specifics.
Then there was post 1114, in response to CrosbyBird's interesting post:
In short, I'm not sure what you're objecting to, and I'm only one of a half dozen posters arguing the case for mens' civil rights.
No one has argued here, even once, that men should ever have the right to force a woman to abort. No one posting here wants that and it's been a given.
Your caps are interesting, though, as that part of your post goes against the fundamental thesis of child support in this country. The rights theory implicit in it is intersting, too. It suggests that children do not have an inherent right to support. It also declares, by painting the man's obligation as supplemental, even contingent, that the man's obligation is less than the woman's; correspondingly it asserts the woman's obligation to support is primary.
Huge Questions: Where the woman is wealthy, if the man is not obliged to support, may he "opt in"? May the woman deny him custody or visitation?
edit: Nick, sorry for the second reply to your post and a couple of redundancies. I thought the earlier one got lost in some internet backwash. Ah--and I just caught up to your post 1326. All's well, and thanks for the dialogue. Even when we disagree I enjoy engaging your thinking.
In most states she'd probably win a custody battle, but wouldn't be able to deny him visitation unless she could convince the court he was abusive to the child. Many states now default to "joint custody" in those states in theory she could deny him a share of custody only by showing he was a danger to the child somehow.
I'm really hoping he says he lives off support payments from his ex.
There are two different (at least) streams happening here, let's not conflate them. One regard the morality of forcing a man to pay to support his progeny (since the woman has an option to abort that he cannot avail himself of). A second relates to the fairness of the current system.
A huge percentage of the "child has a right to support from both its parents" crowd (and certainly me) are not claiming the current system is perfect. We are claiming it is moral to force the father to pay support towards his children. It can be moral to do that and there also be problems with the current system.
It is difficult for me to discuss the current system because while I am paying child support I have not experienced any of the horror stories. Used the MN calculator, determined what I owe and bob's your uncle. I am willing to believe there are horror stories, but I bet there are horror stories around pretty much any law, especially one a commonly needed as around child support. Plus there are 50 states and 50 (at least) versions of the laws, I know some of them are totally screwed up (From a friend my understanding is Alaska is seriously biased in favor of the man in a divorce, for example).
I ain't Ricky, but I believe Ricky works in IT. Ricky does database things for a major player, but I don't know exactly what he do, when he do that thing.
If the woman who had sex chooses 3a, the the result of her decision is having a child. The woman, and only the woman, has decided to have a child.
So far, I am with you.
The only person who can be held morally responsible for that decision is the person who made the decision.
Still with you.
The only person who can be held to account for the consequences of the action - the action being the decision to have a child - is the person who made that decision of her sole volition.
And here you lose me. We can absolutely be held accountable for the consequences of actions that we contribute nothing to. It's not my fault that John has no insurance and broke his ankle, but I am held accountable through increased medical costs or taxation for the cost of his treatment. It's not my fault that there are potholes on the street, seeing as I don't even own a car, but I must pay taxes to repair them as part of living in the city.
The man owes the woman nothing. He does, however, owe the child support by nature of the genetic connection. That the woman could protect him from this duty by eliminating the child doesn't absolve him of this duty. In a case of fraud, I have no problem with a civil judgment forcing a woman to provide restitution for the cost of that support.
Hell of a nerve, robin. Mattie's been shitting on everyone in this thread he disagrees with since long before I got back to it. I was just the latest target. Seriously, you're whining that we're not holding still so you can take the next shot. You're taking swings and when you finally get hit back, you scream "unfair!" It's ridiculous behavior, and you're getting called on it. If you don't like being mocked, stop earning it.
Is this another lazy joke? I've done more heavy lifting wrt specifics, wrt moral philosophy, the nature of rights, court cases, facts on support, and research than the whole PIVS gang combined, and I skipped around 900 posts.
Jesus. You sound exactly like the chump sitting on his shovel ######## that the guy out in the sun working away isn't sweating quite enough. Take a hike, son. Take a hike.
I did want to point out that the only hint of violence came from the only poster in this thread who self-identified as female.
@671: "Also, the next person to equate rape to paying a check: I will find you and it will not be pretty."
No one so equated, by the way. She simply made this up. A lot of the rage in her post was manufactured, imputing to people things they simply hadn't said, and were little more than character assassination. I hadn't been involved in the thread at that point for the previous 400 posts, and the caricature and flat mistating of peoples' positions was obvious and unfortunate.
It's a pity. There's a fascinating discussion to be had on this subject, if we can wade through the dross. I did mention the topic of the thread to a female friend, a tough, compassionate, professional woman, and she had no problem stating it's ridiculous to force men to support children they don't want and didn't agree to. This is a woman who raised her son alone, btw.
We didn't get to specifics. I'll ask her next time we get together how she'd handle the practical side of the issue.
Thanks for the measured reply, Jay.
I have made what I thought was a clear distinction between men who took strong contraceptive precautions and were clear in their disinterest in having a child with the woman in question, versus men in marriages who had children (the de facto assumption being they agreed to them, erring on the side of agreement). The latter have a clear and complete obligation to support their children.
I also think it's important when talking about rights, and especially competing rights, to distinguish between what plays in the court of public opinion, and the right thing to do. I'd agree, of course, that they often have nothing to do with each other.
It's important to put facts out there. It can change the debate if the fact becomes well known that most people who can't meet their support obligation can't because of hardship, and not because of irresponsibility.
It's important to put the fact out there that women meet their support obligations less frequently than do men, not because it paints women as 'bad', but because it reframes the issue as a problem with hardship, with economics, as opposed to 'men are shirkers'.
We have a ridiculous enforcement system in place, a system that demands we imprison x% of those with support obligations simply because our economic system doesn't allow full employment. The more facts we can put into the court of public opinion showing that, the better.
We've decided to create a criminal underclass for no good reason. A sizable majority of people in prison for falling behind simply could not pay. We're putting people in prison because of structural unemployment.
I think it should be on the table. Absolutely. It's a critical factor in so much this. Something like 60% of births to unwed mothers are to unwed mothers with HS or less. The NYT article I linked to also brought social circumstances back to the discussion.
There's no justification for holding forth in such dogmatically absolute terms. It wasn’t long ago that women’s reproductive rights were seen as natural but with different consequences and results, despite ambiguity and ambivalence. In fact, as to the child, not too long ago, babies (not fetuses--babies) found lacking were left on the side of a hill to die or be killed by predators. Same for the old and infirm. And it still is being done. (And I think some now in our society would like to revert to a modern equivalent of that.) No less a sympathetic person to primitive peoples than Jared Diamond, on NPR I think it was, spoke of how his precious New Guinea tribes still engage in infanticide. (And if a woman doesn’t like it, she’s liable to get a noogie with mallet handle.)
We, in the modern western cultures, have decided to do something different, but I wouldn’t be so trigger-happy when it comes to couching our reasons in some high moralistic it-has-to-be-that-way terms. Abraham was ready to wield the knife on his son if God hadn’t said (out on Highway 61), “Hey, Abe, at ease: it’s just a gag.”
Your genetic connection, in this day and age, and considering as an example and guide what the revolutions in our views as to women and race and, yes, children, reads a lot like mere tenuous but-for causation.
He talks about agreeing with his Dad not to borrow the money necessary to keeping himself out of jail from his Dad because his Dad isn't well off, and because the next year they'll just have to do it all over again. Soon they won't be able to afford to keep McGreer out of jail, so if he's going to go anyway, why break his Dad in the process?
As for your third graf, McGreer's giving you the finger. He's obviously saying, "You made me a criminal. You made a lot of us criminals. I'm done being ashamed of it. We should recognize each other and talk to each other."
It appears he was successful in that.
I've never seen you indulge in anything like this intellectual dishonesty before, so I'm going to assume your feelings are blinding you to what you're doing.
Talk about a dishonest framing. Well, keep being willfully (at least you're getting partial credit) stupid, I guess, but I'm done playing along.
Isn't this a strong argument for a strong safety net, and the spreading among many rather than one the cost of a woman's decision to have a child?
Perhaps he had had as much of the kill or be killed lifestyle as he could stomach.
BI consulting, specifically into sales and marketing organizations within Fortune 200 businesses. Which is one of those things that makes me giggle internally when David accuses me of being a socialist or whatever. Rickey won't buy you coffee, because coffee is for closers.
Not at all. I already explained why the McGreer thing is very limited in its utility, and the fact that you have Googled a couple of court cases is not impressive to me, nor is philosophizing about rights (particularly given the intensity of your partisanship on this issue). As Cranly says to Stephen Dedalus, "Every jackass going the roads has ideas."
As to MCOA, I don't expect you to know this, either, but when I was into it with Kehoskie once, I explained to him that, for the most part at BTF, you get what you give. MCOA is very self-aware, and he can also be cutting as hell, so he gets this. I wasn't running interference for him. I was simply pointing out to you that you are not really in a position to be in people's faces about tone issues, as your most recent post addressed to me demonstrates yet again. If you want a more polite discussion, stop insulting everybody who insults or irritates you. IOW, look in the mirror.
And, if you want to focus on content, I asked a specific question addressed to your side about family law. If you want to answer it, answer it. If you don't, don't.
This is an argument for an "it takes a village" social security net for children, not for our current state "if you humped the ass, you pay the lass" system of child support.
I simply disagree. I think you're making the "genetic connection" as an excuse for the status quo. There's no logical necessity in maintaining it in a modernist society.
Not being dishonest at all. I am not interested in male victimization narratives; I have heard them before, here and elsewhere. You can save those for Causa and Ray and Rickey. Like I said, if you want to answer the question, answer it. If you don't, don't. Instead, you chose to call me dishonest and stupid. Once more: if you want to improve the discourse on the thread, try looking in the mirror.
As to McGreer, you are reading stuff into what I posted that simply isn't there. I was simply selecting certain things from his overall narrative that I thought were interesting, some of which made him look bad IMO; others of which didn't. If I had been looking to interpret them, or reading more into them, I would have done that myself, and my description of the actual document that McGreer produced and why he produced it is completely accurate.
I have not argued anything based on "male victimization narratives." My position is no more reliant on victimization narratives than a woman's right to choice is reliant on as much.
We are going to have to agree to disagree to an extent on that one, Hoss. But also note that I didn't really say you had--I simply said that you would be part of a more appreciative audience for them than I am.
Personally I am not fond of any victimization narratives, but if we are collecting them can child victimization narratives have a place at the table?
I wouldn't say no justification. There are moral and pragmatic reasons for holding biological parents responsible for the welfare of their offspring.
While there's evidence of models that don't agree, I don't think that they are particularly good models for a civilized modern society. This whole thread is an ought discussion, and built into any such discussion is "given certain basic assumptions about right and wrong."
We, in the modern western cultures, have decided to do something different, but I wouldn’t be so trigger-happy when it comes to couching our reasons in some high moralistic it-has-to-be-that-way terms. Abraham was ready to wield the knife on his son if God hadn’t said (out on Highway 61), “Hey, Abe, at ease: it’s just a gag.”
I don't think it has to be that way. I just think it should be that way.
My position: You can't leave a child without proper care in a modern, civilized nation; someone has to pay. It's more reasonable to charge the genetic parents with that care than to spread the burden throughout society if possible. The woman's decision as to whether or not to bring the child to term doesn't have any effect on the child's claim to support from its genetic parents. The physical, emotional, and cultural consequences of abortion or carrying a child to term fall so disproportionately upon the woman that it isn't unreasonable or unfair for her to have ultimate right to choose, even though that can end up having consequences for the biological father.
I recognize that there are certain assumptions being made here about the child's claim to support from genetic parents (or legal proxy, in the case of adoption).
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main