I go away for a minute and then I have to come back to this smell of a dead whipped horse!!
and it's not just in this thread either . . . .
two idee fixe(s) for this guy . . . blind as a bat to his own fixations (men's mistreatment at the hand of the demon-devil: WOMAN) and adoration of self-labels ("golly I'm even more conservative than the conservatives Im so conservative!") and happy as a clam about it.
I go away for a minute and then I have to come back to this smell of a dead whipped horse!!
and it's not just in this thread either . . . .
two idee fixe(s) for this guy . . . blind as a bat to his own fixations (men's mistreatment at the hand of the demon-devil: WOMAN) and adoration of self-labels ("golly I'm even more conservative than the conservatives Im so conservative!") and happy as a clam about it.
It's not about MORE rights. It is about equal rights. The child has the right to still see the man he has been calling "Dad" for the 10 years. However he isn't entitled to financial support from that man. Understand that doesn't mean the man won't help him or assist him. However what the man is asking is for the court not to FORCE him to pay a set amount of money per month to the mother who lied about paternity and cheated on him.
Lied and cheated? The system now might be faulty, but your solution has to make this assumption, one that's not just.
The court forces a man to pay because the child has a right to some amount. That's the current system. My point is that I don't know what right is stronger, this child's right or that of the male to be free. I know what you want, but what you want isn't necessarily based on law. It's emotional. That's fine. I'm saying that legal implications might come into play here that undermine your argument.
The courts might have ruled that the child is entitled to that money in most cases, in which case your argument falls flat.
In the even that a man has never seen a kid and it's not biologically his, then make the woman pay.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
That wouldn't disrupt the child's life in ANY regard and the mother wouldn't get a dime for being a lying cheating adulterer.
...
The state will cover in the meantime (gee isn't it nice to be a liar and a cheat, not lose custody and still get money, must be nice for the women) and when they find the true father he can pay.
...
The mother may have lied about who was the father just to get a better provider.
...
Would that affect the child? Sure but you can't take money from a man just because a woman wants to lie and steal it to provide a certain lifestyle for herself.
Nothing personal, but your emotional issues disrupt your usually better judgement. Again, your 'cure' assumes the worst of the woman and builds a case from there. I think that's backwards.
Lied and cheated? The system now might be faulty, but your solution has to make this assumption, one that's not just.
yes lied and cheated. We are not talking about every case in tne entire system. We are talking about very specific cases involving paternity fraud. Fraud = lying.
Quote:
The court forces a man to pay because the child has a right to some amount. That's the current system. My point is that I don't know what right is stronger, this child's right or that of the male to be free. I know what you want, but what you want isn't necessarily based on law. It's emotional. That's fine. I'm saying that legal implications might come into play here that undermine your argument.
A man? How about the father? That is all anyone is advocating here. That THE FATHER, should pay for his offspring. In instances where the mother has lied, the paternity case was defaulted and was later proven wrong the man should be absolved.
Can you tell me a single other type of case/crime where if the man was found not to be the party involved in the case or the criminal the case would still be valid? Think of the absurdity you perpetuate here. I don't care if it is done in the name of children, it is absurd.
Quote:
The courts might have ruled that the child is entitled to that money in most cases, in which case your argument falls flat.
I don't care what the courts rule. The courts ruled black people property, and seperate but equal legal. Are you saying we should have "honored" those decisions until they were overturned?
Are you telling me that if the Supreme Court ruled Roe v. Wade unconstitutional tomorrow your "arguments" for abortion would fall flat?
Please......
Quote:
Nothing personal, but your emotional issues disrupt your usually better judgement. Again, your 'cure' assumes the worst of the woman and builds a case from there. I think that's backwards.
It doesn't assume the worst of women in all cases. It assumes the worst of them in instances where they have committed paternity fraud. The cure for fraud is to overturn the decision related to that fraud. It has nothing to do with emotion, what I think of women or anything else. Fraud should not be rewarded.
Think about how silly your argument is in this regard. If I suggested a solution for witnesses that have perjured themselves, would I think the worst of all witnesses? No just the ones that perjure themselves.
What do you think? Do you find it odd that a DNA test can exonerate a killer from death row, but can't relieve a man from child support payments for a child he didn't creat?
Nick
What could be considered scarier might be the bigger question:
Should DNA become a de facto form of ID to resolve issues?
After all, if we can use it for everything to prove where someone was, why not just take a sample at birth from every child, round up everyone out there now, get the DNA, and lets start cross-matching to find out who's hiding something?
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
.
I go away for a minute and then I have to come back to this smell of a dead whipped horse!!
and it's not just in this thread either . . . .
two idee fixe(s) for this guy . . . blind as a bat to his own fixations (men's mistreatment at the hand of the demon-devil: WOMAN) and adoration of self-labels ("golly I'm even more conservative than the conservatives Im so conservative!") and happy as a clam about it.
*i shoulda stayed away*
see y'all around . . . .
.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
trumpetman, you have to set up some uber-thread for all your men/women issues.
.............................
might i suggest therapy.
I just prefer equality. I'm sure ol'Rosa Parks just needed some therapy to make her like giving up her seat to a white man.
Nick
Originally posted by pfflam
.
I go away for a minute and then I have to come back to this smell of a dead whipped horse!!
and it's not just in this thread either . . . .
two idee fixe(s) for this guy . . . blind as a bat to his own fixations (men's mistreatment at the hand of the demon-devil: WOMAN) and adoration of self-labels ("golly I'm even more conservative than the conservatives Im so conservative!") and happy as a clam about it.
*i shoulda stayed away*
see y'all around . . . .
.
And this comment is necessary?
Originally posted by trumptman
Sorry if it seemed like I was a bit "testy" with you.
I just get short with folks who bring only one bit of reasoning to the discussions and that is, "yeah it's screws people, but it is for the kids!"
That may not have been the full intent of where you were coming from and if that was the case I apologize. Either way I apologize for the tone.
Nick
no problem. without being able to hear or see who your "conversing" with it easy to do.
Originally posted by trumptman
It's not about MORE rights. It is about equal rights. The child has the right to still see the man he has been calling "Dad" for the 10 years. However he isn't entitled to financial support from that man. Understand that doesn't mean the man won't help him or assist him. However what the man is asking is for the court not to FORCE him to pay a set amount of money per month to the mother who lied about paternity and cheated on him.
Lied and cheated? The system now might be faulty, but your solution has to make this assumption, one that's not just.
The court forces a man to pay because the child has a right to some amount. That's the current system. My point is that I don't know what right is stronger, this child's right or that of the male to be free. I know what you want, but what you want isn't necessarily based on law. It's emotional. That's fine. I'm saying that legal implications might come into play here that undermine your argument.
The courts might have ruled that the child is entitled to that money in most cases, in which case your argument falls flat.
In the even that a man has never seen a kid and it's not biologically his, then make the woman pay.
Originally posted by trumptman
That wouldn't disrupt the child's life in ANY regard and the mother wouldn't get a dime for being a lying cheating adulterer.
...
The state will cover in the meantime (gee isn't it nice to be a liar and a cheat, not lose custody and still get money, must be nice for the women) and when they find the true father he can pay.
...
The mother may have lied about who was the father just to get a better provider.
...
Would that affect the child? Sure but you can't take money from a man just because a woman wants to lie and steal it to provide a certain lifestyle for herself.
Nothing personal, but your emotional issues disrupt your usually better judgement. Again, your 'cure' assumes the worst of the woman and builds a case from there. I think that's backwards.
Originally posted by bunge
Lied and cheated? The system now might be faulty, but your solution has to make this assumption, one that's not just.
yes lied and cheated. We are not talking about every case in tne entire system. We are talking about very specific cases involving paternity fraud. Fraud = lying.
The court forces a man to pay because the child has a right to some amount. That's the current system. My point is that I don't know what right is stronger, this child's right or that of the male to be free. I know what you want, but what you want isn't necessarily based on law. It's emotional. That's fine. I'm saying that legal implications might come into play here that undermine your argument.
A man? How about the father? That is all anyone is advocating here. That THE FATHER, should pay for his offspring. In instances where the mother has lied, the paternity case was defaulted and was later proven wrong the man should be absolved.
Can you tell me a single other type of case/crime where if the man was found not to be the party involved in the case or the criminal the case would still be valid? Think of the absurdity you perpetuate here. I don't care if it is done in the name of children, it is absurd.
The courts might have ruled that the child is entitled to that money in most cases, in which case your argument falls flat.
I don't care what the courts rule. The courts ruled black people property, and seperate but equal legal. Are you saying we should have "honored" those decisions until they were overturned?
Are you telling me that if the Supreme Court ruled Roe v. Wade unconstitutional tomorrow your "arguments" for abortion would fall flat?
Please......
Nothing personal, but your emotional issues disrupt your usually better judgement. Again, your 'cure' assumes the worst of the woman and builds a case from there. I think that's backwards.
It doesn't assume the worst of women in all cases. It assumes the worst of them in instances where they have committed paternity fraud. The cure for fraud is to overturn the decision related to that fraud. It has nothing to do with emotion, what I think of women or anything else. Fraud should not be rewarded.
Think about how silly your argument is in this regard. If I suggested a solution for witnesses that have perjured themselves, would I think the worst of all witnesses? No just the ones that perjure themselves.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What do you think? Do you find it odd that a DNA test can exonerate a killer from death row, but can't relieve a man from child support payments for a child he didn't creat?
Nick
What could be considered scarier might be the bigger question:
Should DNA become a de facto form of ID to resolve issues?
After all, if we can use it for everything to prove where someone was, why not just take a sample at birth from every child, round up everyone out there now, get the DNA, and lets start cross-matching to find out who's hiding something?