|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 02 2015 11:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 11:33 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 02 2015 10:34 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 10:12 DemigodcelpH wrote:On April 02 2015 06:21 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2015 06:09 wei2coolman wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2015 05:47 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point.
EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. So you are secretly a social conservative? That is the exact same argument they give for why abortions should not be legal in the first place. Abstinence has never been a good argument for these issues, and that doesn't change now. I think he merely phrased it oddly. The idea is not that you should be at least minimally willing to raise kids in some regard prior to having sex, rather that, by sticking your dick into a vagina, you recognize the varyingly remote possibility that, in 9 months from the date of the act, a child will pop out of that very same vagina. Phrased in those terms, it lines up pretty nicely with sufficient public access to abortions in the sense that you should be aware of the consequences that follow from fucking, one of which might be an abortion. So some how this falls all on the guy? Shouldn't the exact same expectation fall on the woman (with exclusion of obvious rape scenarios)? Cuz, if that's the case then guys shouldn't be getting fucked over in child custody and child support cases. This is a complicated problem because the natural contours of sexual health put a woman in a naturally disadvantaged position via her having to take on the growth of the baby in a physical capacity. Add in stuff like women losing quite a bit of earning power once having a child and I think an unequal legal burden on men starts to look a bit more reasonable, at least until there's more equilibrium. Also very true, though I wouldn't call it an unequal legal burden. If the child is born both parties have to take responsibility. If the child is aborted neither parties take responsibility. It's just generally the mother who decides whether to terminate it or not because she has to spend a year of her life growing it/leaving work/being physically drained. Maternity leave doesn't last a year. A man given custody would take just as big of a hit to his career as a woman would. Carrying the child takes 9 months, with 12 weeks of maternity leave that's a year. Pretty sure thats what he was getting at. Point is you're forcing someone to do something with their body against their will for 9 months. The whole situation is a shit sandwich. But requiring someone to carry a fetus to term against their will with no say in the matter is MASSIVELY fucked up. For most of those 9 months, she is not impaired in any way.
You actually don't know what you're talking about here.
Pregnancy is extremely hard on a woman's body, and complications can develop (and are very common) at any stage, ranging from hormonal imbalances (thyroid problems, gestational diabetes, etc.) to serious physical pain induced by having your ligaments stretched/bones restructured, serious back pain from carrying 30 extra pounds around, the development of carpel tunnel syndrome, to having the calcium literally drained from your body leading to long term bone damage.
And then you have the birth, which is an incredibly painful process, and also potentially physically damaging/life-threatening even with modern technology. It takes months to recover, even if you have a birth that goes well. It can take years to recover from a birth that does not go well, and women often still suffer permanent damage even from good birthings. And that's not even getting into cosmetic damage caused by birth on a woman's body.
Pregnancy is not easy. It's also not a "healthy" process from a woman to go through, when you look at it from the perspective of the woman's physical well-being. There's a reason why 200 years ago childbirth or pregnancy related complications were the leading causes of mortality amongst women. It's a price that most women gladly pay to create the next generation (when they are ready to do so), and they should be honoured for it.
Forcing someone to go through that is really, really fucked up though. I can't impress that upon people enough. It's really messed up. It should always be the woman's final decision to terminate the pregnancy for these reasons. Men should in an ideal world have their desires listened to and validly considered, but the final say is always the woman's. They are the ones who pay the health cost.
|
Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday imposed mandatory water restrictions for the first time on residents, businesses and farms, ordering cities and towns in the drought-ravaged state to reduce usage by 25%.
"We're in a new era," Brown said. "The idea of your nice little green grass getting lots of water every day, that's going to be a thing of the past."
The 25% cut in usage amounts to roughly 1.5 million acre-feet of water (an acre foot of water equals about 325,000 gallons) over the next nine months, state officials said.
"This historic drought demands unprecedented action," Brown said, standing on a patch of dry, brown grass in the Sierra Nevada mountains that is usually blanketed by up to 5 feet of snow.
The reduction in water use does not apply to the agriculture industry, except for the requirement that it report more information on its groundwater use. The exclusion prompted some criticism, as agriculture uses about 80% of California's developed water supply.
source
|
On April 02 2015 13:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 12:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
i know you have a hard-on and all for me, but what are you talking about? what impression did i have about what?
edit: also, i am pretty sure plansix was talking about the senator, not responding to you. Other than the sexual innuendo (creepy) I'm talking about this. On April 02 2015 11:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 09:01 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 08:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 08:50 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Most of the laws (last time I checked) don't say anything about the man even needing to be informed. She could do it anonymously before he even has a chance at custody too. She could also do it when he was deployed or something too and he might not know for months, after the kid is long gone. The point is that women can avoid any responsibility if they want/choose to after birth even. She has a 1 day-1 year window for babies remorse where she can just say "You know what, I decided I'm not raising this kid for xyz reasons or no reason at all". Men only get that choice pre-sex where women get that choice at every stage. A little more parity wouldn't be an inherently bad thing.
I'd be more than understanding if it was tied to addressing a lack of parity for women in a reasonably related area though. Most of the states have a law where the "Safe Haven" must make reasonable efforts too find the father. All of them have rules for reclaiming custody and the laws in question only protect the abandoning party from child negligence charges. None of them would bar a father from seeking child support from the mother if he regained custody. The law also wouldn't protect her from any legal action the father took if she abandoned the child against his express wishes. The law's sole purpose it to assure the abandoned child is left in a place where people will care for it. It provides almost no legal protection for the abandoning party beyond the act of abandoning the baby. With the anonymity of the person dropping off the baby it's probably pretty difficult to do any of the things you just said. And a father could do the exact same thing. The law is not gender specific. The logistical issue that the mother has to give birth to the child means they are more likely to take advantage of the law, but it is impossible to address that issue. But that would not prevent the father from taking legal action to force the mother to disclose where she abandoned the child. Wouldn't the ol' "I don't recall" excuse work? Not sure what you would threaten them with legally to induce them to divulge the location? likely contempt of court. less likely kidnapping or its ilk. How long do we think it would be before they could even get it to a courtroom for them to be in contempt of? Plus if it's their kid and they have whatever level of custody is presumed at birth and they are given the child to do whatever legal activities they wish, dropping the baby off at a safe haven and then forgetting where you did it would fall under those legal activities. Bottom line, even if you were able to twist the law in a way to legitimately threaten them, by the time that happened the kid could be anywhere. ... and i am not sure why you think its legal for one parent to do whatever they want with their child without the knowledge or consent of the other parent. you seem to be under the misimpression that both parents dont have rights. Not only was it legal for her to do whatever she wanted with the kid without his consent or knowledge, she didn't even have to tell him he had a kid. in the first example where that statement was made, the father knew about the kid and the mother took the kid away without the consent or knowledge of the father. in the second example, the father never knew about the kid. these are not parallels in my mind. context matters...
So the father never knew about the kid, and is still stuck with paying child support, and that's somehow OK to you?
I mean clearly the father had no say in the first 6 years of the child's life, he didn't even know she existed.
|
On April 03 2015 00:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 13:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 12:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
i know you have a hard-on and all for me, but what are you talking about? what impression did i have about what?
edit: also, i am pretty sure plansix was talking about the senator, not responding to you. Other than the sexual innuendo (creepy) I'm talking about this. On April 02 2015 11:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 09:01 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 08:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 08:50 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Most of the states have a law where the "Safe Haven" must make reasonable efforts too find the father. All of them have rules for reclaiming custody and the laws in question only protect the abandoning party from child negligence charges. None of them would bar a father from seeking child support from the mother if he regained custody. The law also wouldn't protect her from any legal action the father took if she abandoned the child against his express wishes. The law's sole purpose it to assure the abandoned child is left in a place where people will care for it. It provides almost no legal protection for the abandoning party beyond the act of abandoning the baby. With the anonymity of the person dropping off the baby it's probably pretty difficult to do any of the things you just said. And a father could do the exact same thing. The law is not gender specific. The logistical issue that the mother has to give birth to the child means they are more likely to take advantage of the law, but it is impossible to address that issue. But that would not prevent the father from taking legal action to force the mother to disclose where she abandoned the child. Wouldn't the ol' "I don't recall" excuse work? Not sure what you would threaten them with legally to induce them to divulge the location? likely contempt of court. less likely kidnapping or its ilk. How long do we think it would be before they could even get it to a courtroom for them to be in contempt of? Plus if it's their kid and they have whatever level of custody is presumed at birth and they are given the child to do whatever legal activities they wish, dropping the baby off at a safe haven and then forgetting where you did it would fall under those legal activities. Bottom line, even if you were able to twist the law in a way to legitimately threaten them, by the time that happened the kid could be anywhere. ... and i am not sure why you think its legal for one parent to do whatever they want with their child without the knowledge or consent of the other parent. you seem to be under the misimpression that both parents dont have rights. Not only was it legal for her to do whatever she wanted with the kid without his consent or knowledge, she didn't even have to tell him he had a kid. in the first example where that statement was made, the father knew about the kid and the mother took the kid away without the consent or knowledge of the father. in the second example, the father never knew about the kid. these are not parallels in my mind. context matters... So the father never knew about the kid, and is still stuck with paying child support, and that's somehow OK to you? I mean clearly the father had no say in the first 6 years of the child's life, he didn't even know she existed.
If he was unaware for 6 years and the mother obtained a court order for child support, there is likely some issue with service of process or notification. The father was defaulted by the Court because the court assumed he did respond to the summons or notices. If not and he simply didn't open his mail, then that is on him or ignored the summons(yes people do that all the time)
This sort of stuff happens all the time in debt collection and the defendants can bring defenses such as improper service of process. You act like this stuff is set in stone forever, which it isn’t. The defense of “I was totally unaware this child exists and was not afforded to opportunity to pay” is a valid defense the judge would take into account.
|
On April 03 2015 00:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2015 00:32 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 13:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 12:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
i know you have a hard-on and all for me, but what are you talking about? what impression did i have about what?
edit: also, i am pretty sure plansix was talking about the senator, not responding to you. Other than the sexual innuendo (creepy) I'm talking about this. On April 02 2015 11:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 09:01 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 08:57 Jormundr wrote:
[quote]
With the anonymity of the person dropping off the baby it's probably pretty difficult to do any of the things you just said. And a father could do the exact same thing. The law is not gender specific. The logistical issue that the mother has to give birth to the child means they are more likely to take advantage of the law, but it is impossible to address that issue. But that would not prevent the father from taking legal action to force the mother to disclose where she abandoned the child. Wouldn't the ol' "I don't recall" excuse work? Not sure what you would threaten them with legally to induce them to divulge the location? likely contempt of court. less likely kidnapping or its ilk. How long do we think it would be before they could even get it to a courtroom for them to be in contempt of? Plus if it's their kid and they have whatever level of custody is presumed at birth and they are given the child to do whatever legal activities they wish, dropping the baby off at a safe haven and then forgetting where you did it would fall under those legal activities. Bottom line, even if you were able to twist the law in a way to legitimately threaten them, by the time that happened the kid could be anywhere. ... and i am not sure why you think its legal for one parent to do whatever they want with their child without the knowledge or consent of the other parent. you seem to be under the misimpression that both parents dont have rights. Not only was it legal for her to do whatever she wanted with the kid without his consent or knowledge, she didn't even have to tell him he had a kid. in the first example where that statement was made, the father knew about the kid and the mother took the kid away without the consent or knowledge of the father. in the second example, the father never knew about the kid. these are not parallels in my mind. context matters... So the father never knew about the kid, and is still stuck with paying child support, and that's somehow OK to you? I mean clearly the father had no say in the first 6 years of the child's life, he didn't even know she existed. If he was unaware for 6 years and the mother obtained a court order for child support, there is likely some issue with service of process or notification. The father was defaulted by the Court because the court assumed he did respond to the summons or notices. If not and he simply didn't open his mail, then that is on him or ignored the summons(yes people do that all the time) This sort of stuff happens all the time in debt collection and the defendants can bring defenses such as improper service of process. You act like this stuff is set in stone forever, which it isn’t. The defense of “I was totally unaware this child exists and was not afforded to opportunity to pay” is a valid defense the judge would take into account.
Then there's the fact that the kid was only created because he was raped. So he's being forced to pay for being a victim, essentially.
|
On April 03 2015 00:45 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2015 00:41 Plansix wrote:On April 03 2015 00:32 Millitron wrote:On April 02 2015 13:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 12:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
i know you have a hard-on and all for me, but what are you talking about? what impression did i have about what?
edit: also, i am pretty sure plansix was talking about the senator, not responding to you. Other than the sexual innuendo (creepy) I'm talking about this. On April 02 2015 11:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 09:01 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
And a father could do the exact same thing. The law is not gender specific. The logistical issue that the mother has to give birth to the child means they are more likely to take advantage of the law, but it is impossible to address that issue. But that would not prevent the father from taking legal action to force the mother to disclose where she abandoned the child. Wouldn't the ol' "I don't recall" excuse work? Not sure what you would threaten them with legally to induce them to divulge the location? likely contempt of court. less likely kidnapping or its ilk. How long do we think it would be before they could even get it to a courtroom for them to be in contempt of? Plus if it's their kid and they have whatever level of custody is presumed at birth and they are given the child to do whatever legal activities they wish, dropping the baby off at a safe haven and then forgetting where you did it would fall under those legal activities. Bottom line, even if you were able to twist the law in a way to legitimately threaten them, by the time that happened the kid could be anywhere. ... and i am not sure why you think its legal for one parent to do whatever they want with their child without the knowledge or consent of the other parent. you seem to be under the misimpression that both parents dont have rights. Not only was it legal for her to do whatever she wanted with the kid without his consent or knowledge, she didn't even have to tell him he had a kid. in the first example where that statement was made, the father knew about the kid and the mother took the kid away without the consent or knowledge of the father. in the second example, the father never knew about the kid. these are not parallels in my mind. context matters... So the father never knew about the kid, and is still stuck with paying child support, and that's somehow OK to you? I mean clearly the father had no say in the first 6 years of the child's life, he didn't even know she existed. If he was unaware for 6 years and the mother obtained a court order for child support, there is likely some issue with service of process or notification. The father was defaulted by the Court because the court assumed he did respond to the summons or notices. If not and he simply didn't open his mail, then that is on him or ignored the summons(yes people do that all the time) This sort of stuff happens all the time in debt collection and the defendants can bring defenses such as improper service of process. You act like this stuff is set in stone forever, which it isn’t. The defense of “I was totally unaware this child exists and was not afforded to opportunity to pay” is a valid defense the judge would take into account. Then there's the fact that the kid was only created because he was raped. So he's being forced to pay for being a victim, essentially.
Assuming he is totally honest and was totally unaware of the court proceedings, the judgment against him exists because he was defaulted for not appearing. It is very likely the Court did not receive all the facts due to only one party presenting them. He can seek to have the default judgment removed if he was not served properly. It happens to my clients(debt collectors) all the time because they used out of date information.
So no, you are wrong and taking a completely hyperbolic stance on that specific case. The new article you referenced is from when he first found out the child and case existed. We have no idea how the case proceeded from there or how the court responded to the issue of the age difference.
|
On April 03 2015 00:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 13:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 13:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 12:57 dAPhREAk wrote:
i know you have a hard-on and all for me, but what are you talking about? what impression did i have about what?
edit: also, i am pretty sure plansix was talking about the senator, not responding to you. Other than the sexual innuendo (creepy) I'm talking about this. On April 02 2015 11:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 10:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2015 09:01 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 08:57 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 08:50 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Most of the states have a law where the "Safe Haven" must make reasonable efforts too find the father. All of them have rules for reclaiming custody and the laws in question only protect the abandoning party from child negligence charges. None of them would bar a father from seeking child support from the mother if he regained custody. The law also wouldn't protect her from any legal action the father took if she abandoned the child against his express wishes. The law's sole purpose it to assure the abandoned child is left in a place where people will care for it. It provides almost no legal protection for the abandoning party beyond the act of abandoning the baby. With the anonymity of the person dropping off the baby it's probably pretty difficult to do any of the things you just said. And a father could do the exact same thing. The law is not gender specific. The logistical issue that the mother has to give birth to the child means they are more likely to take advantage of the law, but it is impossible to address that issue. But that would not prevent the father from taking legal action to force the mother to disclose where she abandoned the child. Wouldn't the ol' "I don't recall" excuse work? Not sure what you would threaten them with legally to induce them to divulge the location? likely contempt of court. less likely kidnapping or its ilk. How long do we think it would be before they could even get it to a courtroom for them to be in contempt of? Plus if it's their kid and they have whatever level of custody is presumed at birth and they are given the child to do whatever legal activities they wish, dropping the baby off at a safe haven and then forgetting where you did it would fall under those legal activities. Bottom line, even if you were able to twist the law in a way to legitimately threaten them, by the time that happened the kid could be anywhere. ... and i am not sure why you think its legal for one parent to do whatever they want with their child without the knowledge or consent of the other parent. you seem to be under the misimpression that both parents dont have rights. Not only was it legal for her to do whatever she wanted with the kid without his consent or knowledge, she didn't even have to tell him he had a kid. in the first example where that statement was made, the father knew about the kid and the mother took the kid away without the consent or knowledge of the father. in the second example, the father never knew about the kid. these are not parallels in my mind. context matters... So the father never knew about the kid, and is still stuck with paying child support, and that's somehow OK to you? I mean clearly the father had no say in the first 6 years of the child's life, he didn't even know she existed.
it is not okay that the mother kept the child a secret from the father, but that is between the mother and father, it has nothing to do with the child or child support. its okay to me that the kid will now be receiving support from his or her father; it is not the child's fault that the mother is an awful person. broken record here, but child support is about the child, not the mother or father.
about the statutory rape, as someone pointed out (assuming its true), there are ways around child support in the case of sexual assault. i dont know specifics about that, but that seems reasonable to me. where the parent did not consent to the sexual activity, there are concerns with forcing them to pay child support.
|
Ah yes, because the court has treated him and others like him so fairly, he will obviously be motivated to (with all the extra money he doesn't have from paying child support) engage in masturbatory court proceedings which will (once more) not be ruled in his favor.
If child support is about the child and not the parents then it should be tax based welfare rather than extortion.
|
On April 03 2015 01:03 Jormundr wrote:
Ah yes, because the court has treated him and others like him so fairly, he will obviously be motivated to (with all the extra money he doesn't have from paying child support) engage in masturbatory court proceedings which will (once more) not be ruled in his favor.
If child support is about the child and not the parents then it should be tax based welfare rather than extortion.
Hows that chip on your shoulder doing?
|
On April 03 2015 01:03 Jormundr wrote:
Ah yes, because the court has treated him and others like him so fairly, he will obviously be motivated to (with all the extra money he doesn't have from paying child support) engage in masturbatory court proceedings which will (once more) not be ruled in his favor.
If child support is about the child and not the parents then it should be tax based welfare rather than extortion.
While you are using inflammatory language for no apparent reason, the idea that child support should be through the government and paid for with taxes, is something that could be discussed. Send a letter to your congressman?
Of course, that has its downsides too (like raising taxes, which nobody ever likes, and in this case in particular, adults without children will be up in arms, as will parents who are happily together, raising their children).
|
This discussion has been going on very long know. I propose a very easy rule of thumb : Two persons make the child, two people care for the child. If two adults bring a new human into this world it's not the two adults anyone should care about, it's the kid. So you either pay for it or raise it, preferably the latter.
I don't know how narcissistic our society has become that people think you can just father a child and then not give a crap about it, but it's pretty pathetic.
|
On April 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2015 01:03 Jormundr wrote:
Ah yes, because the court has treated him and others like him so fairly, he will obviously be motivated to (with all the extra money he doesn't have from paying child support) engage in masturbatory court proceedings which will (once more) not be ruled in his favor.
If child support is about the child and not the parents then it should be tax based welfare rather than extortion. Hows that chip on your shoulder doing?
How's it feel to be a rape apologist?
Still waiting for you to produce an argument, but barbs are fun so keep it up. Please do explain why equality is not a desirable goal, I'm all ears at this point
|
LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — Western officials say that Iran and the United States have agreed on the outlines of an understanding that would open the path to a final phase of nuclear negotiations but are in a dispute over how much to make public.
The officials spoke Thursday outside talks focused on formulating a general statement of what has been accomplished and documents setting down what the sides need to do by the end of June deadline for a deal.
Source
|
On April 03 2015 01:10 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote:On April 03 2015 01:03 Jormundr wrote:
Ah yes, because the court has treated him and others like him so fairly, he will obviously be motivated to (with all the extra money he doesn't have from paying child support) engage in masturbatory court proceedings which will (once more) not be ruled in his favor.
If child support is about the child and not the parents then it should be tax based welfare rather than extortion. Hows that chip on your shoulder doing? How's it feel to be a rape apologist? Still waiting for you to produce an argument, but barbs are fun so keep it up. Please do explain why equality is not a desirable goal, I'm all ears at this point
So now you're making stuff up? I never even discussed rape in my response, only the process how the judgment for child support was likely obtained. You're the one throwing angry tantrums when people post reasonable responses to how the case could be handled.
|
On April 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2015 01:03 Jormundr wrote:
Ah yes, because the court has treated him and others like him so fairly, he will obviously be motivated to (with all the extra money he doesn't have from paying child support) engage in masturbatory court proceedings which will (once more) not be ruled in his favor.
If child support is about the child and not the parents then it should be tax based welfare rather than extortion. Hows that chip on your shoulder doing?
How's that gender bias in the courts doing?
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html
|
On April 03 2015 01:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — Western officials say that Iran and the United States have agreed on the outlines of an understanding that would open the path to a final phase of nuclear negotiations but are in a dispute over how much to make public.
The officials spoke Thursday outside talks focused on formulating a general statement of what has been accomplished and documents setting down what the sides need to do by the end of June deadline for a deal. Source
So they have reached an agreement over a possible agreement regarding the outline of an agreement, but are in disagreement over how much to say about said agreement? 
|
On April 03 2015 01:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2015 01:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — Western officials say that Iran and the United States have agreed on the outlines of an understanding that would open the path to a final phase of nuclear negotiations but are in a dispute over how much to make public.
The officials spoke Thursday outside talks focused on formulating a general statement of what has been accomplished and documents setting down what the sides need to do by the end of June deadline for a deal. Source So they have reached an agreement over a possible agreement regarding the outline of an agreement, but are in disagreement over how much to say about said agreement?
Basically, they have the terms of the agreement worked out in principle, but need to reduce it to a formal, written agreement that can be signed and approved by the nations governments.
|
On April 03 2015 01:18 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote:On April 03 2015 01:03 Jormundr wrote:
Ah yes, because the court has treated him and others like him so fairly, he will obviously be motivated to (with all the extra money he doesn't have from paying child support) engage in masturbatory court proceedings which will (once more) not be ruled in his favor.
If child support is about the child and not the parents then it should be tax based welfare rather than extortion. Hows that chip on your shoulder doing? How's that gender bias in the courts doing? http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html
To prove court bias you would also need a graph showing that the number of people appearing before court is more equal. If that is simply a depiction of the real percentage of criminals, then it isn't a court bias, but a systemic problem in the population. Two different treatments for a similar problem: too many young (black) men in jail.
|
On April 03 2015 01:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2015 01:10 Jormundr wrote:On April 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote:On April 03 2015 01:03 Jormundr wrote:
Ah yes, because the court has treated him and others like him so fairly, he will obviously be motivated to (with all the extra money he doesn't have from paying child support) engage in masturbatory court proceedings which will (once more) not be ruled in his favor.
If child support is about the child and not the parents then it should be tax based welfare rather than extortion. Hows that chip on your shoulder doing? How's it feel to be a rape apologist? Still waiting for you to produce an argument, but barbs are fun so keep it up. Please do explain why equality is not a desirable goal, I'm all ears at this point So now you're making stuff up? I never even discussed rape in my response, only the process how the judgment for child support was likely obtained. You're the one throwing angry tantrums when people post reasonable responses to how the case could be handled.
You said that the court didn't have "all the facts" which obfuscates the fact that they had the identities of both people and the age of the child, which is all you need for a clear cut case of statutory rape in arizona. And in spite of being a rapist she still got the money. How fucked does a system have to be before you want to fix it? Guilty until proven innocent is not a valid basis for law.
|
On April 03 2015 01:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2015 01:18 Millitron wrote:On April 03 2015 01:06 Plansix wrote:On April 03 2015 01:03 Jormundr wrote:
Ah yes, because the court has treated him and others like him so fairly, he will obviously be motivated to (with all the extra money he doesn't have from paying child support) engage in masturbatory court proceedings which will (once more) not be ruled in his favor.
If child support is about the child and not the parents then it should be tax based welfare rather than extortion. Hows that chip on your shoulder doing? How's that gender bias in the courts doing? http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html To prove court bias you would also need a graph showing that the number of people appearing before court is more equal. If that is simply a depiction of the real percentage of criminals, then it isn't a court bias, but a systemic problem in the population. Two different treatments for a similar problem: too many young (black) men in jail.
So you're saying men are inherently more likely to be criminals? That's pretty sexist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
