If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stonekettle Station)   "For them, life begins at conception and ends at birth"   (stonekettle.com) divider line 474
    More: Hero, stoned to death, self-loathing, hormonal contraceptives, Iron Age, welfare queen, religious image, hijackings, Jehovah  
•       •       •

15432 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Feb 2012 at 9:24 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



474 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-26 02:34:43 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: Sounds good to me. But I think if you ever do choose to have it and the father doesnt want to, then you should allow him opt out completely including financially.


Sure, the mother can say the father can "opt out completely including financially."

But, oh, wait... Problem. The mother can't waive the child's right to support, because the mother doesn't have a legal right to do so. It's the child's support, not her support. It's like if I sign a contract with you to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. We can happily sign that contract, but you don't get ownership of the bridge, because I never had any right to sell it. Or, for example, I can give you a piece of paper saying you can opt out of paying income taxes... But that sure isn't going to save you when you stop filing tax returns.

Same thing here - the father could hold up a contract waiving child support obligations, signed by the mother, and a judge will cheerfully disregard it because she never had the ability to give that waiver. The only person who can waive child support obligations is the child (or a guardian ad litem acting in the child's name). Not the mother, and not the father.
 
2012-02-26 02:39:31 PM  

Theaetetus: SquiggelyGrounders: Sounds good to me. But I think if you ever do choose to have it and the father doesnt want to, then you should allow him opt out completely including financially.

Sure, the mother can say the father can "opt out completely including financially."

But, oh, wait... Problem. The mother can't waive the child's right to support, because the mother doesn't have a legal right to do so. It's the child's support, not her support. It's like if I sign a contract with you to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. We can happily sign that contract, but you don't get ownership of the bridge, because I never had any right to sell it. Or, for example, I can give you a piece of paper saying you can opt out of paying income taxes... But that sure isn't going to save you when you stop filing tax returns.

Same thing here - the father could hold up a contract waiving child support obligations, signed by the mother, and a judge will cheerfully disregard it because she never had the ability to give that waiver. The only person who can waive child support obligations is the child (or a guardian ad litem acting in the child's name). Not the mother, and not the father.


IANAL -- i am, in fact, not very smart. So this may be a really dumb question, and I apologize in advance if it is. But isn't the mother the guardian of the child? can't she then waive the child support?

Again, sorry if that's dumb.
 
2012-02-26 02:49:22 PM  

epoc_tnac: You know, as much as our perception of feminists as annoying, man hating idiots may still stick in our throats, the GOP have actually forced millions of people into becoming defenders of women's rights, AKA feminists. No doubt the feminists will be pissed that we're siding with them, but here we are.


We're not pissed. We're happy people are realizing women's rights= human rights. Now have a cookie decorated to look like a pack of BC pills.
 
2012-02-26 02:52:09 PM  

CapnBlues: Theaetetus: SquiggelyGrounders: Sounds good to me. But I think if you ever do choose to have it and the father doesnt want to, then you should allow him opt out completely including financially.

Sure, the mother can say the father can "opt out completely including financially."

But, oh, wait... Problem. The mother can't waive the child's right to support, because the mother doesn't have a legal right to do so. It's the child's support, not her support. It's like if I sign a contract with you to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. We can happily sign that contract, but you don't get ownership of the bridge, because I never had any right to sell it. Or, for example, I can give you a piece of paper saying you can opt out of paying income taxes... But that sure isn't going to save you when you stop filing tax returns.

Same thing here - the father could hold up a contract waiving child support obligations, signed by the mother, and a judge will cheerfully disregard it because she never had the ability to give that waiver. The only person who can waive child support obligations is the child (or a guardian ad litem acting in the child's name). Not the mother, and not the father.

IANAL -- i am, in fact, not very smart. So this may be a really dumb question, and I apologize in advance if it is. But isn't the mother the guardian of the child? can't she then waive the child support?


Not a dumb question, but no, not exactly. Or rather yes, but the term "guardian" has different meanings in different contexts. The mother is the guardian of the child for certain purposes, but not all. The guardian ad litem is a guardian who is appointed by the court to represent the child's interests in those remaining purposes.

Basically, the child still has independent rights, and even the mother's role as legal guardian is subordinate to those rights: she has a fiduciary duty to the child to act in the child's best interests, and if she doesn't, her legal power can be taken away. Furthermore, if there's a case where the mother's interests are at conflict with the child's interests, the court will appoint a guardian so that the child's rights are protected.
The mother waiving child support for her own motives would be an example of both of those. She's acting against the financial interests of the child, and has interests at conflict with the child's interests.
 
2012-02-26 02:58:57 PM  

skullkrusher: dlp211: skullkrusher: dlp211: Right, and I admitted I was wrong and moved on with the conversation. And while contraceptives are easy to obtain, they are not 1) free and 2) not everyone is educated on their use. I think if we dive deeper into the statistics of abortions of 20-29 year olds, we will find the majority of them come from under educated women, but that is merely a guess.

they are not free but they are pretty damn close to it. If you don't know how to put a condom on by the time you're 20 you should probably just stop trying to get laid

Cheap is not free. And there are a lot of people that don't know how to put a condom on right by the time they are 20. Hell there are a lot of people that don't know how to put one on by the time they are 30. And I am talking about the whole range of contraceptives. The pill, the ring, the shot, the morning after pill, female condoms, male condoms, and probably a whole host of others that I haven't mentioned.

If you educate people and make them free, then abortions would decrease. Would they go to zero, no, would they drop more then a few or more percentage points, if you have a good education program and actually get through to people early enough, yep.

why the heck do we need to make a whole range of contraceptives free? If we "need" to make them available for free, why not offer the cheapest option which also protects against disease?


Because contraceptives, particularly hormonal ones, are a part of women's healthcare. In addition to providing pregnancy protection they help protect against ovarian cancer, can reduce symptoms of endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome and reduce PMDD or PMS.
 
2012-02-26 02:59:58 PM  

Theaetetus: succinct and clear explanation


thanks!
 
2012-02-26 03:03:36 PM  

RoyBatty: Oh, well, your posting anywhere on the net wastes everyone's time, so mission accomplished I guess.


Aw, shucks. *sticks hands in pockets, kicks can, walks away*
 
2012-02-26 03:03:43 PM  

CapnBlues: IANAL -- i am, in fact, not very smart. So this may be a really dumb question, and I apologize in advance if it is. But isn't the mother the guardian of the child? can't she then waive the child support?
Again, sorry if that's dumb.


Parents sometimes try to do this so that they can deny the other parent visitation--"he has nothing to do with the kid, he doesn't even pay child support!" This is why child support and custody issues are supposed to be completely separate. One parent can't withhold CS if they aren't seeing the kids, a parent can't pay more so they get more custody, you can't waive CS so that you can say that the kids are "all yours" and the other parent can't see them. That's how it's supposed to work anyway, *snort* *snicker*

/My opinion of family court couldn't be any lower than it already is.
 
2012-02-26 03:06:56 PM  

cryinoutloud: My opinion of family court couldn't be any lower than it already is.


One thing to bear in mind about family court is that it's supposed to be unfair, by definition... in that both of the parents' rights are subordinate to the child's. Family court is about the best interests of the child. If that means your wages get garnished so little Timmy can get braces, that may be unfair to you, but suck it up because it's all about the kid.
 
2012-02-26 03:07:12 PM  

singdizzy: skullkrusher: singdizzy: "

I'll be sure to shove voters pamphlets up my twat so my little glob of snot can exercise its right to vote.

For now, I'll exercise my right to to tell you two words. Hint: they rhyme with dark poo.

with charm like that, I don't think you have to worry about getting preggo anytime soon ;)

You're right, my apologies. I stopped talking about shopping and baking and diapers and talked like a man. NOW I'LL NEVER GET PREGNANT.


I don't think guys who talk like that get laid too often either
 
2012-02-26 03:11:58 PM  
That was beautiful (wipes tear from eye). A definite bookmark.
 
2012-02-26 03:14:31 PM  

Lemurknits: Because contraceptives, particularly hormonal ones, are a part of women's healthcare. In addition to providing pregnancy protection they help protect against ovarian cancer, can reduce symptoms of endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome and reduce PMDD or PMS.


outside the scope of this discussion. We were talking about reducing the frequency of abortions. Treatment of disorders is something else entirely. Not to mention adding female hormonal contraception does not equate to a "whole range" of contraceptive offerings - which is what I was responding to. It's one thing.
 
2012-02-26 03:16:41 PM  

Mavent: Hell, even REPUBLICANS are starting to complain that it's gone too far.


Like I said, unfeasible. :)

Although I think they'd probably take issue with "women hating", Romney looks like he eats right, and I'm sure at least one of the presidential candidates has done a healthy share of charitable giving. If one of them manages to win in November, it will likely reflect on greater dissatisfaction with the president on these and other issues; or a centrist shift after the convention.

Or the episode of the Daily Show where Regan's top aide said that the Republican party has "gone insane"?

I think I missed that one! I'll have to look it up.
 
2012-02-26 03:18:24 PM  

Jz4p: Mavent: Hell, even REPUBLICANS are starting to complain that it's gone too far.

Like I said, unfeasible. :)

Although I think they'd probably take issue with "women hating", Romney looks like he eats right, and I'm sure at least one of the presidential candidates has done a healthy share of charitable giving. If one of them manages to win in November, it will likely reflect on greater dissatisfaction with the president on these and other issues; or a centrist shift after the convention.

Or the episode of the Daily Show where Regan's top aide said that the Republican party has "gone insane"?

I think I missed that one! I'll have to look it up.


Feb 22 - Bruce Bartlett was the guest.
 
2012-02-26 03:20:24 PM  

skullkrusher: singdizzy: skullkrusher: singdizzy: "

I'll be sure to shove voters pamphlets up my twat so my little glob of snot can exercise its right to vote.

For now, I'll exercise my right to to tell you two words. Hint: they rhyme with dark poo.

with charm like that, I don't think you have to worry about getting preggo anytime soon ;)

You're right, my apologies. I stopped talking about shopping and baking and diapers and talked like a man. NOW I'LL NEVER GET PREGNANT.

I don't think guys who talk like that get laid too often either


Yeah - only guys who aren't afraid to say "F*(K YOU" for realz get laid!
 
2012-02-26 03:27:05 PM  

Theaetetus: RoyBatty: If you're looking for a feminist that doesn't believe women who make false charges should be prosecuted just ask KiplingKat in this thread. She surely doesn't as she has expressed before. And it's um pretty interesting you don't think they exist.

It's important to note for the purpose of this discussion that Roy doesn't understand the concept of a false dichotomy, or that there may be better solutions beyond "prosecute" or "ignore". As a result, he disregards anyone who suggests any more pragmatic possibilities and lumps them all into the "man-hatin' liberal commie feminist who wants to imprison innocent men" group he's defined.


I'm going to need a citation for that Theaetetus.

There's a huge difference between my saying there are plenty of feminists that frequently argue not to prosecute false accusations of rape,

and your claiming

This means I think the only two possibilities are either prosecute or ignore.

Even a cheap dimester attorney like you should be able to parse that.

In fact, it's quite the opposite of course, and if you had any integrity, you would acknowledge that quite frequently, feminists find a zillion reasons not to prosecute, and never can find a reason to prosecute, indicating what their actual desires are.

Here is a FARK Thread in which typical FARK feminists argue that false accusations are so low that they are ignorable, NOT that there are better approaches to stopping them. Link
(new window)

Here's a facebook page for slutwalk that says:

http://www.facebook.com/SlutWalkToronto/posts/219025141445652

Charging women with false reporting does not discourage false rape allegations-it discourages ALL rape allegations."

Here's a woman at Salon, she won't even name the name of a admitted false accuser, do you think she thinks this woman should be proseuted?

Don't get me wrong: I take false rape accusations very seriously, and feminists have to take a stand against them. At best, they make things harder on real victims; at worst, they send innocent people to jail and ruin their good names. But when I compare RAINN's statistics (reported within the past 10 years by highly reputable sources) and Billoblog's, it seems clear that under-reporting is a far bigger problem. I don't want to further deter real rape victims from bringing their rapist to justice. And that's why I won't be printing the Hofstra accuser's name.

Here is Shakespeare's sister, again making the argument that false accusations are so rare, that we should ignore them to stop actual rapes:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2005/12/dont-just-blame-victim - prosecute-her.html

And I'm of course far from the only person saying that feminists like to ignore the problem of false accusations:

Here is Emily Bazelon in double x (now just listed as Slate):

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/10 / how_often_do_women_falsely_cry_rape.2.html

This is sobering. As, of course, is the whole topic. We're left to draw the following conclusion: False allegations of rape aren't rampant. But they don't have to be to cause terrible trouble. This is a problem that a men's rights movement shouldn't trump up. And also one that feminists can't dismiss.

Here is Cathy Young:

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/opinion-the-unique-power-of-crying-rap e -1.1469444

Many feminists argue that the problem of false accusations is so minuscule that to discuss it extensively is a harmful distraction from the far more serious problem of rape. On the other side are men's-rights activists, claiming that false accusations are as much of a scourge as rape itself.

...

To recognize that some women wrongly accuse men of rape is not anti-female, any more than recognizing that some men rape women is anti-male. There is power in a charge as uniquely damaging as rape, and women are no less likely than men to abuse the power they have. To recognize this fact is not "backlash" but basic fairness.


If you were actually a human and not just a lawyer, you would be the first to acknowledge this.

Instead as a lawyer, you feel it necessary and ethical to lie justified by winning an argument.

You have nothing but your bluster to indicate that I am only one track on this, prosecute.

But I have shown that feminists are frequently known to indicate nothing at all should be done to false accusers.

It's not a false dichotomy for me to ask what about prosecutions when absolutely no other alternative has been offered by the feminists apart from doing nothing.

You should stop your white knighting and instead act to seek out and advocate for truth.
 
2012-02-26 03:37:06 PM  

Theaetetus: cryinoutloud: My opinion of family court couldn't be any lower than it already is.

One thing to bear in mind about family court is that it's supposed to be unfair, by definition... in that both of the parents' rights are subordinate to the child's. Family court is about the best interests of the child. If that means your wages get garnished so little Timmy can get braces, that may be unfair to you, but suck it up because it's all about the kid.


Best interests of the child fails due process and equal protection, but you know that.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf

Best interests of the child allow judges to do whatever the hell they feel like, disregarding law and the constitution and if you know any divorce lawyers or judges, you know their own opinion of family court is pretty darn low for this reason.
 
2012-02-26 03:53:08 PM  

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: singdizzy: skullkrusher: singdizzy: "

I'll be sure to shove voters pamphlets up my twat so my little glob of snot can exercise its right to vote.

For now, I'll exercise my right to to tell you two words. Hint: they rhyme with dark poo.

with charm like that, I don't think you have to worry about getting preggo anytime soon ;)

You're right, my apologies. I stopped talking about shopping and baking and diapers and talked like a man. NOW I'LL NEVER GET PREGNANT.

I don't think guys who talk like that get laid too often either

Yeah - only guys who aren't afraid to say "F*(K YOU" for realz get laid!


I was referring to the "up my twat" bit
 
2012-02-26 03:54:59 PM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: singdizzy: skullkrusher: singdizzy: "

I'll be sure to shove voters pamphlets up my twat so my little glob of snot can exercise its right to vote.

For now, I'll exercise my right to to tell you two words. Hint: they rhyme with dark poo.

with charm like that, I don't think you have to worry about getting preggo anytime soon ;)

You're right, my apologies. I stopped talking about shopping and baking and diapers and talked like a man. NOW I'LL NEVER GET PREGNANT.

I don't think guys who talk like that get laid too often either

Yeah - only guys who aren't afraid to say "F*(K YOU" for realz get laid!

I was referring to the "up my twat" bit


You would prefer "mangina"?
 
2012-02-26 04:00:26 PM  

RoyBatty: Theaetetus: RoyBatty: If you're looking for a feminist that doesn't believe women who make false charges should be prosecuted just ask KiplingKat in this thread. She surely doesn't as she has expressed before. And it's um pretty interesting you don't think they exist.

It's important to note for the purpose of this discussion that Roy doesn't understand the concept of a false dichotomy, or that there may be better solutions beyond "prosecute" or "ignore". As a result, he disregards anyone who suggests any more pragmatic possibilities and lumps them all into the "man-hatin' liberal commie feminist who wants to imprison innocent men" group he's defined.

I'm going to need a citation for that Theaetetus.


Sure.
 
2012-02-26 04:00:41 PM  

DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: singdizzy: skullkrusher: singdizzy: "

I'll be sure to shove voters pamphlets up my twat so my little glob of snot can exercise its right to vote.

For now, I'll exercise my right to to tell you two words. Hint: they rhyme with dark poo.

with charm like that, I don't think you have to worry about getting preggo anytime soon ;)

You're right, my apologies. I stopped talking about shopping and baking and diapers and talked like a man. NOW I'LL NEVER GET PREGNANT.

I don't think guys who talk like that get laid too often either

Yeah - only guys who aren't afraid to say "F*(K YOU" for realz get laid!

I was referring to the "up my twat" bit

You would prefer "mangina"?


I believe "snizz" is the term accepted by most
 
2012-02-26 04:01:14 PM  

RoyBatty: Theaetetus: RoyBatty: If you're looking for a feminist that doesn't believe women who make false charges should be prosecuted just ask KiplingKat in this thread. She surely doesn't as she has expressed before. And it's um pretty interesting you don't think they exist.

It's important to note for the purpose of this discussion that Roy doesn't understand the concept of a false dichotomy, or that there may be better solutions beyond "prosecute" or "ignore". As a result, he disregards anyone who suggests any more pragmatic possibilities and lumps them all into the "man-hatin' liberal commie feminist who wants to imprison innocent men" group he's defined.

I'm going to need a citation for that Theaetetus.


Sure. Link (new window)

blah blah blah...
If you were actually a human and not just a lawyer, you would be the first to acknowledge this.


I agree and readily acknowledge that you don't understand what any of those posts are talking about. I do this as a human, and as a Farker. My legal credentials have nothing to do with ridiculing you.

Instead as a lawyer, you feel it necessary and ethical to lie justified by winning an argument.
You have nothing but your bluster to indicate that I am only one track on this, prosecute.


... and most of this thread, as well as others.

But I have shown that feminists are frequently known to indicate nothing at all should be done to false accusers.

Yeah, like I said. You don't actually understand any of those posts. In fact, none of them said "nothing should be done to false accusers". Not one. Rather, they're saying that victims shouldn't be presumed to be making a false accusation and charged, without evidence. You do believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty, Roy... Right?

It's not a false dichotomy for me to ask what about prosecutions when absolutely no other alternative has been offered by the feminists apart from doing nothing.

As noted, those posts aren't talking about false accusers, so the fact that they aren't suggesting what to do about them is unsurprising - and no, as noted above, they aren't suggesting doing nothing.
Perhaps you should find some feminists actually talking about what to do about false accusers, rather than feminists talking about what to do to protect victims who themselves are falsely accused of being false accusers.

Oh, and Roy:
You should stop your white knighting and instead act to seek out and advocate for truth.

No one, except perhaps your buddies on the Spearhead, takes you seriously when you call someone a white knight. Grow the fark up.
 
2012-02-26 04:04:36 PM  

skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: DarwiOdrade: skullkrusher: singdizzy: skullkrusher: singdizzy: "

I'll be sure to shove voters pamphlets up my twat so my little glob of snot can exercise its right to vote.

For now, I'll exercise my right to to tell you two words. Hint: they rhyme with dark poo.

with charm like that, I don't think you have to worry about getting preggo anytime soon ;)

You're right, my apologies. I stopped talking about shopping and baking and diapers and talked like a man. NOW I'LL NEVER GET PREGNANT.

I don't think guys who talk like that get laid too often either

Yeah - only guys who aren't afraid to say "F*(K YOU" for realz get laid!

I was referring to the "up my twat" bit

You would prefer "mangina"?

I believe "snizz" is the term accepted by most


Does your snizz get you laid often?
 
2012-02-26 04:06:35 PM  

RoyBatty: Best interests of the child fails due process and equal protection, but you know that.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf


Uh, Roy, that article doesn't say what you think it says. Here's a hint - go to the fourth paragraph of the summary, and you see where it says "... these restrictions are generally unconstitutional, except when..."?
Good... Now, follow along because this might be difficult for you to understand.

When he's talking about "restrictions" being unconstitutional, he means that some restrictions may be unconstitutional. The restrictions are named in the prior paragraphs of the summary, you see.

Now, is "the best interests of the child" a restriction?
No?
So, he's not saying "best interests of the child fails due process and equal protection" then? No.
Hooray! Roy learned something today!
 
2012-02-26 04:18:36 PM  

Theaetetus: RoyBatty: Best interests of the child fails due process and equal protection, but you know that.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf

Uh, Roy, that article doesn't say what you think it says. Here's a hint - go to the fourth paragraph of the summary, and you see where it says "... these restrictions are generally unconstitutional, except when..."?
Good... Now, follow along because this might be difficult for you to understand.

When he's talking about "restrictions" being unconstitutional, he means that some restrictions may be unconstitutional. The restrictions are named in the prior paragraphs of the summary, you see.

Now, is "the best interests of the child" a restriction?
No?
So, he's not saying "best interests of the child fails due process and equal protection" then? No.
Hooray! Roy learned something today!


Yeah, actually he is, and he has expressed it many times over the years, in this case, in a first amendment case.

And yes, you are well known as FARK's irrational white knight. http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=theatetus+white+kni ght

And yes, if you're going to make claims about another person, you should be able to back that up but instead you admit you can't and just give a link the lmgtfy. Lame as usual, dood.
 
2012-02-26 04:21:27 PM  

Theaetetus: Yeah, like I said. You don't actually understand any of those posts. In fact, none of them said "nothing should be done to false accusers". Not one. Rather, they're saying that victims shouldn't be presumed to be making a false accusation and charged, without evidence. You do believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty, Roy... Right?


Tell you what, why don't you find me some well known feminists arguing that we should prosecute malicious false accusers of rape.

I'll just stand on what I've posted and what we all experienced in Duke, Hoffstra, Brawley, and at other times.

Your turn though, show me some well known feminists arguing to prosecute malicious false accusers of rape.
 
2012-02-26 04:30:13 PM  

cryinoutloud: SquiggelyGrounders: Sounds good to me. But I think if you ever do choose to have it and the father doesnt want to, then you should allow him opt out completely including financially.

I already said that, didn't I? In my frist poast.

Doesn't work that way in the courts anyway. You can be ordered to pay CS even if the woman wants nothing to do with you. Try blaming that on the farked up court system, instead of the woman.

bottom line is that if you choose to fark, you might get screwed. It always seems like such an OMGWTF moment for men when they find this out. Women have always known this.


Ah, I see you did say that. Nevermind.

I do blame the courts. But it been my experience that many women expect the man to be responsible for their decision. They get out raged at the very idea that the man would even want to opt out. Thats usually when your manhood is called into question. I can see you are not one of those kind of women

Cheers
 
2012-02-26 04:38:02 PM  
All I know from reading this thread is that Roybatty raised another man's child and has a pretty big chip on his shoulder as a result.

I also learned that people still do not understand that child support is the right of the child, not the parents, so you can't "opt out" of your obligation to fulfill that right unilaterally.
 
2012-02-26 04:39:09 PM  

RoyBatty: Theaetetus: RoyBatty: Best interests of the child fails due process and equal protection, but you know that.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf

Uh, Roy, that article doesn't say what you think it says. Here's a hint - go to the fourth paragraph of the summary, and you see where it says "... these restrictions are generally unconstitutional, except when..."?
Good... Now, follow along because this might be difficult for you to understand.

When he's talking about "restrictions" being unconstitutional, he means that some restrictions may be unconstitutional. The restrictions are named in the prior paragraphs of the summary, you see.

Now, is "the best interests of the child" a restriction?
No?
So, he's not saying "best interests of the child fails due process and equal protection" then? No.
Hooray! Roy learned something today!

Yeah, actually he is, and he has expressed it many times over the years, in this case, in a first amendment case.


Roy, you can keep putting your fingers in your ears and saying "he is, he is, he is" all he wants, but his actual words in the article you linked show you're wrong.

And yes, you are well known as FARK's irrational white knight. http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=theatetus+white+kni ght

I see one link (the third one) to a thread in which you call me a white knight.
... yeah, that sure does show... something.

And yes, if you're going to make claims about another person, you should be able to back that up but instead you admit you can't and just give a link the lmgtfy. Lame as usual, dood.

What claims? That I insulted you? Uh, okay. I'm sorry that I cannot provide sufficient factual evidence for calling you a poopy head. I withdraw the claim, as I lack the inability to verify your head's level of poopiness.
 
2012-02-26 04:40:52 PM  

Theaetetus: SquiggelyGrounders: Sounds good to me. But I think if you ever do choose to have it and the father doesnt want to, then you should allow him opt out completely including financially.

Sure, the mother can say the father can "opt out completely including financially."

But, oh, wait... Problem. The mother can't waive the child's right to support, because the mother doesn't have a legal right to do so. It's the child's support, not her support. It's like if I sign a contract with you to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. We can happily sign that contract, but you don't get ownership of the bridge, because I never had any right to sell it. Or, for example, I can give you a piece of paper saying you can opt out of paying income taxes... But that sure isn't going to save you when you stop filing tax returns.

Same thing here - the father could hold up a contract waiving child support obligations, signed by the mother, and a judge will cheerfully disregard it because she never had the ability to give that waiver. The only person who can waive child support obligations is the child (or a guardian ad litem acting in the child's name). Not the mother, and not the father.


I dont disagree that that is how it works. But if the mother wanted the pregnancy and the father didnt, then it should be her complete responsibility to support the child. I say this because its wrong for a man to dictate what a woman does to her body. But since she has the ultimate say about the pregnancy, then she should be willing to take full responsibility. If, for some reason, the mother didnt want the pregnancy but had it for the father (far out there), then the mother should also have the right to opt out. But if she wanted to opt out she should have had an abortion.

/I think its a little disingenuous to claim that the only concern women have regarding pregnancy/abortion is health.
 
2012-02-26 04:44:44 PM  

RoyBatty: Theaetetus: Yeah, like I said. You don't actually understand any of those posts. In fact, none of them said "nothing should be done to false accusers". Not one. Rather, they're saying that victims shouldn't be presumed to be making a false accusation and charged, without evidence. You do believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty, Roy... Right?

Tell you what, why don't you find me some well known feminists arguing that we should prosecute malicious false accusers of rape.

I'll just stand on what I've posted and what we all experienced in Duke, Hoffstra, Brawley, and at other times.

Your turn though, show me some well known feminists arguing to prosecute malicious false accusers of rape.


In order for it to be my turn to respond, shouldn't you have responded? In other words, finished your turn?
You haven't yet shown any feminists saying that malicious accusers shouldn't be prosecuted. You've shown some saying that women shouldn't be presumptively accused of bringing false accusations, but you take offense to that because you apparently believe that women are guilty until proven innocent. So, sure, I'll take my turn... once you've shown some feminist saying that false accusers shouldn't be prosecuted.
 
2012-02-26 04:46:09 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: I dont disagree that that is how it works. But if the mother wanted the pregnancy and the father didnt, then it should be her complete responsibility to support the child. I say this because its wrong for a man to dictate what a woman does to her body. But since she has the ultimate say about the pregnancy, then she should be willing to take full responsibility. If, for some reason, the mother didnt want the pregnancy but had it for the father (far out there), then the mother should also have the right to opt out. But if she wanted to opt out she should have had an abortion.


If she has an abortion, what did she opt-out of? What obligation exists that she has somehow waived?

In other words, for her to "opt out", there must be something to opt out of. If there's no child, then she never had an obligation of support to that child, so she hasn't "opted out" of anything.
 
2012-02-26 04:51:42 PM  

Theaetetus: You haven't yet shown any feminists saying that malicious accusers shouldn't be prosecuted. You've shown some saying that women shouldn't be presumptively accused of bringing false accusations, but you take offense to that because you apparently believe that women are guilty until proven innocent. So, sure, I'll take my turn... once you've shown some feminist saying that false accusers shouldn't be prosecuted.


I think I showed that just fine, you just prefer to misconstrue what I wrote.

That's fine.

And it's hard to prove a negative.

So why don't you prove the positive?

Show me some examples of well known feminists calling for the prosecution of false accusers of rape.
 
2012-02-26 04:53:54 PM  

RoyBatty: Your turn though, show me some well known feminists arguing to prosecute malicious false accusers of rape.


Define "malicious false accusers of rape".
 
2012-02-26 05:00:29 PM  

Theaetetus: SquiggelyGrounders: I dont disagree that that is how it works. But if the mother wanted the pregnancy and the father didnt, then it should be her complete responsibility to support the child. I say this because its wrong for a man to dictate what a woman does to her body. But since she has the ultimate say about the pregnancy, then she should be willing to take full responsibility. If, for some reason, the mother didnt want the pregnancy but had it for the father (far out there), then the mother should also have the right to opt out. But if she wanted to opt out she should have had an abortion.

If she has an abortion, what did she opt-out of? What obligation exists that she has somehow waived?

In other words, for her to "opt out", there must be something to opt out of. If there's no child, then she never had an obligation of support to that child, so she hasn't "opted out" of anything.


She opted to have an abortion rather than a child or vice versa.
 
2012-02-26 05:01:16 PM  

Biological Ali: RoyBatty: Your turn though, show me some well known feminists arguing to prosecute malicious false accusers of rape.

Define "malicious false accusers of rape".


I would guess anyone who has been found to be lying about being raped, and I mean proven that they were not raped, like the dude was lucky enough and kinky enough to have recorded the sex act that she later claims was rape.
 
2012-02-26 05:04:49 PM  

Raharu: Biological Ali: RoyBatty: Your turn though, show me some well known feminists arguing to prosecute malicious false accusers of rape.

Define "malicious false accusers of rape".

I would guess anyone who has been found to be lying about being raped, and I mean proven that they were not raped, like the dude was lucky enough and kinky enough to have recorded the sex act that she later claims was rape.


"Lying" how? Lying while testifying in court, or lying somewhere else?
 
2012-02-26 05:15:51 PM  

RoyBatty: Theaetetus: You haven't yet shown any feminists saying that malicious accusers shouldn't be prosecuted. You've shown some saying that women shouldn't be presumptively accused of bringing false accusations, but you take offense to that because you apparently believe that women are guilty until proven innocent. So, sure, I'll take my turn... once you've shown some feminist saying that false accusers shouldn't be prosecuted.

I think I showed that just fine, you just prefer to misconstrue what I wrote.

That's fine.

And it's hard to prove a negative.


What's a negative about "find a single feminist saying we shouldn't prosecute false accusers"? I'm not sure you understand what this fallacy means.

And why is it so hard to find a single example of a feminist saying that, if you claim it's so widespread, Roy?

Show me some examples of well known feminists calling for the prosecution of false accusers of rape.

Dude, in this thread there are people saying that false accusations hurt real victims and should be prosecuted. It's like you're ignoring the existence of every post that goes against your preconceived beliefs.
 
2012-02-26 05:18:16 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: Theaetetus: SquiggelyGrounders: I dont disagree that that is how it works. But if the mother wanted the pregnancy and the father didnt, then it should be her complete responsibility to support the child. I say this because its wrong for a man to dictate what a woman does to her body. But since she has the ultimate say about the pregnancy, then she should be willing to take full responsibility. If, for some reason, the mother didnt want the pregnancy but had it for the father (far out there), then the mother should also have the right to opt out. But if she wanted to opt out she should have had an abortion.

If she has an abortion, what did she opt-out of? What obligation exists that she has somehow waived?

In other words, for her to "opt out", there must be something to opt out of. If there's no child, then she never had an obligation of support to that child, so she hasn't "opted out" of anything.

She opted to have an abortion rather than a child or vice versa.


So she opted in to a medical procedure.

That's not the same as opting out. Again, for her to opt out, there must be something for her to opt out of. Please point to the child that exists and therefore has a right to parental support which the mother has supposedly waived, after an abortion.
Right, there isn't one.

If there's no child, then there's no obligation, and therefore, the obligation has not been "waived" or "opted out of".
 
2012-02-26 05:18:24 PM  

Biological Ali: Raharu: Biological Ali: RoyBatty: Your turn though, show me some well known feminists arguing to prosecute malicious false accusers of rape.

Define "malicious false accusers of rape".

I would guess anyone who has been found to be lying about being raped, and I mean proven that they were not raped, like the dude was lucky enough and kinky enough to have recorded the sex act that she later claims was rape.

"Lying" how? Lying while testifying in court, or lying somewhere else?


I think in court would do for this example. Ive heard of this happening but all the accuser gets charged with is perjury.

If I was accused of rape, and I went to court, and was able to prove that it was lies and fabrication. I would turn around and sue the person who had accused me, and I would attempt to get them labeled as a sexual predator in the eyes of the law. Because honestly that is what I feel false rape accusers are. Sexual predators.
 
2012-02-26 05:21:20 PM  

Raharu: I think in court would do for this example. Ive heard of this happening but all the accuser gets charged with is perjury.


Eh? Why would you expect (or even want) them to be charged with anything other than perjury?
 
2012-02-26 05:39:44 PM  

Raharu: If I was accused of rape, and I went to court, and was able to prove that it was lies and fabrication. I would turn around and sue the person who had accused me, and I would attempt to get them labeled as a sexual predator in the eyes of the law. Because honestly that is what I feel false rape accusers are. Sexual predators.


Yeah, but you'd fail in that attempt, because regardless of your honest feelings, perjury, slander, and false reporting of crimes are not sexual.
You'd succeed in the civil suit, but that labeling attempt wouldn't fly.
 
2012-02-26 06:20:11 PM  

crazyeddie: All I know from reading this thread is that Roybatty raised another man's child and has a pretty big chip on his shoulder as a result.

I also learned that people still do not understand that child support is the right of the child, not the parents, so you can't "opt out" of your obligation to fulfill that right unilaterally.


Intrresting. In another thread, he also claimed to have been falsely accused of rape. (Because there are no rape victims because he is a victim, ergo demanding rights for rape victims is an evil feminazi plot.)

Wow, RoyBatty really has some shiatty taste in women. But then, most mysogynists do.
 
2012-02-26 06:24:44 PM  

Biological Ali: RoyBatty: Your turn though, show me some well known feminists arguing to prosecute malicious false accusers of rape.

Define "malicious false accusers of rape".


What Roy keeps ignoring is that there already are penalties for filing false charges. And that most feminists do deplore the false accusations of the 3% (according to the FBI and Bureau of Justice) of rape accusations found to be without merit.

It gets in the way of his martyr complex.
 
2012-02-26 06:52:35 PM  
Remember when everybody was afraid of JFK because he was a catholic? Now the conservatives wouldn't have it any other way (They still have apprehensions about the Mormons).
 
2012-02-26 06:56:19 PM  

DarthBrooks: For them, life begins at conception and ends at birth

As soon as there's an atheist version of Catholic Charities, and the Catholic church stops providing care for the poor and the sick. Until then, this statement is a lie and the writer is a hypocritical ass.


No Catholic charity exists for anything beyond self-service, handing out Bibles, and spreading harmful contraception myths that help spread STDs. Go f*ck yourself.
 
2012-02-26 07:05:47 PM  

Theaetetus: SquiggelyGrounders: Theaetetus: SquiggelyGrounders: I dont disagree that that is how it works. But if the mother wanted the pregnancy and the father didnt, then it should be her complete responsibility to support the child. I say this because its wrong for a man to dictate what a woman does to her body. But since she has the ultimate say about the pregnancy, then she should be willing to take full responsibility. If, for some reason, the mother didnt want the pregnancy but had it for the father (far out there), then the mother should also have the right to opt out. But if she wanted to opt out she should have had an abortion.

If she has an abortion, what did she opt-out of? What obligation exists that she has somehow waived?

In other words, for her to "opt out", there must be something to opt out of. If there's no child, then she never had an obligation of support to that child, so she hasn't "opted out" of anything.

She opted to have an abortion rather than a child or vice versa.

So she opted in to a medical procedure.

That's not the same as opting out. Again, for her to opt out, there must be something for her to opt out of. Please point to the child that exists and therefore has a right to parental support which the mother has supposedly waived, after an abortion.
Right, there isn't one.

If there's no child, then there's no obligation, and therefore, the obligation has not been "waived" or "opted out of".


Medical procedure/abortion to-may-to/to-maw-to

She either brings the child to term or she doesnt. There is no third option. If she does nothing to stop the pregnancy then she will have a child. Aborting a pregnancy is opting out of motherhood, having a child, or whatever you want to call it.

If she has an abortion, then you are right. There isnt one.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or just lame troll?
 
2012-02-26 07:11:39 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: Aborting a pregnancy is opting out of motherhood, having a child, or whatever you want to call it.


Sure, in the same manner that not getting pregnant in the first place is "opting out of motherhood".
 
2012-02-26 07:30:59 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: She either brings the child to term or she doesnt. There is no third option. If she does nothing to stop the pregnancy then she will have a child. Aborting a pregnancy is opting out of motherhood, having a child, or whatever you want to call it.

If she has an abortion, then you are right. There isnt one.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or just lame troll?


No, I think you are. You admit that there's no child. So where's the obligation that she's opting out of?

This is really simple, and I'm not sure why you can't understand it:
An obligation is the result of the right of another person. The child has a right to support, so therefore the parents are obligated to provide support.
If the child doesn't exist, it doesn't have any rights. Therefore, the parents have no obligations to it.

So what is she opting out of? Where is the child who has waived its right to support?

/also, this is unrelated, but "If she does nothing to stop the pregnancy then she will have a child" shows a startling lack of understanding of pregnancy and the 80% miscarriage rate.
 
2012-02-26 07:35:13 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: Aborting a pregnancy is opting out of motherhood, having a child, or whatever you want to call it.


Ah, I missed this line... We're not talking about "opting out of having a child". You earlier said:

SquiggelyGrounders: But I think if you ever do choose to have it and the father doesnt want to, then you should allow him opt out completely including financially.


Opting out in this context would be having a vasectomy. But that's not what you're talking about. You're not talking about "opting out of having a child" but rather "opting out of visitation, custody, and support."
That's very, very different than "opting out of having a child." In fact, since your proposal requires a child, it's almost exactly the opposite of abortion.
 
Displayed 50 of 474 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report