patrick.net

1. & 2. If you don't like the driving analogy, then how about running and knocking over someone?

3. "Trick" is silly talk. Women tricking men into support is no different from men tricking women into sex.

4. Child support formulae are not based on 100%, but based on both parents sharing the responsibility. That's why joint and equal physical custody in the same town usually would result in ZERO child support payment. However, for most couples, the men are much more productive in employment, so it makes sense for one party to contribute more time while the other contribute more money. On average $430/mo, median less than $300/mo, that is not nearly enough to raise a child, but simply the difference in terms of time and effort between the two parents.

Reality says

all he needs to do is pay her enough to compensate for her physical and emotional pain. The threshold is not that high for most girls.

That's fine, but it would need to be codified (can be done with a couple of sentences), there's plenty of disagreement as well.

Reality says

Men can easily do that when he voluntarily pays double or more of the legal requirement for child support, like I'm doing with my ex-wife. She is much more compliant than she ever was while still married.

This is a personal anecdote though and a result of you two getting along which is always the best outcome. The reality of many battling ex-couples is very different where the woman is not that 'agreeable'. Again codifying this with simple words would go a long way.

Reality says

3. "Trick" is silly talk. Women tricking men into support is no different from men tricking women into sex.

How so? Women don't enjoy sex and make a conscious decision? Again, this is an advocacy for a patriarchy were women are not up to par with men mentally. I am not saying that this isn't the case, there's lots of discussion about biological differences (feelings vs rationality), but you cannot have it both ways. If women demand (and already have gotten more than) equality, then there is no tricking into sex (by either side), only a conscious rational choice (knowing the risks well).

Reality says

You have the option to drive, but if you run over someone, you are liable. Likewise, you have the option to have sex, but if you knock someone up, you are on the hook for supporting the offspring to the legal requirement

Non Sequitur.

If you knock someone up, that person can take the morning after pill and end the pregnancy. If you run someone over there is no pill that will bring the person back to life. In order for your conclusion to logically follow the premise, a woman would have to have absolutely no choice but to bear the child and to raise him in order for there to be a moral, ethical, or legal duty for the man to support the child.

Reality says

before other people are drafted into supporting your spawn.

This is an argument against anti-poverty programs, not an argument in favor of indentured servitude. If avoiding taxes is so fucking important that it warrants indentured servitude, then first the law should prevent any woman you is not married and financially secure from having a child. I doubt there are too many people who would support that.

Reality says

You are being a hypocritical pussy when you advocate taxation (indentured servitude if there ever is one) yet argue against being held responsible for your own spawn.

Bullshit. Hypocrisy, by definition, requires a contradiction. There is no contradiction in my position. Just because you don't like my position doesn't make it hypocritical and you are a fool for making such a ridiculous argument.

Once more, you have failed to provide any counterargument to the central and most important issue of this thread, consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.

Reality says

Men can easily do that when he voluntarily pays double or more of the legal requirement for child support, like I'm doing with my ex-wife. She is much more compliant than she ever was while still married.

I'm impressed that you have your current viewpoint with this past. It goes to show that not everybody that pays child support has to run around bitching about it like a crying baby would. I'm on board with most of your arguments on this thread.

mell says

3. "Trick" is silly talk. Women tricking men into support is no different from men tricking women into sex.

How so? Women don't enjoy sex and make a conscious decision? Again, this is an advocacy for a patriarchy were women are not up to par with men mentally. I am not saying that this isn't the case, there's lots of discussion about biological differences (feelings vs rationality), but you cannot have it both ways. If women demand (and already have gotten more than) equality, then there is no tricking into sex (by either side), only a conscious rational choice (knowing the risks well).

I think you touched on the real answer: feelings vs. rationality. If women were entirely rationally calculating her risk of death in the stone age regarding pregnancy, none of us would be here. One can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy, with the force of 300,000 years of evolution telling her to keep it. Any men taking the risk of dumping live sperm inside her has to cope with the consequences before any of us are required to pitch in. Unless we pass laws for infanticide when the father refuses or is incapable of paying support, we have to make the father pay, so that he is not off to knock up even more young fertile women, which are limiting resources in terms of human reproduction. "Ooops, Sorry!" is not good enough! You break it, you keep it! You knock her up, you pay for the spawn! Simple enough.

Reality says

One can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy, with the force of 300,000 years of evolution telling her to keep it.

Fine, then we cannot allow women to make important decisions while they are PMSing (which can be all the time these days) - maybe they should be restricted to the kitchen and living room during that period ;)

mell says

One can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy, with the force of 300,000 years of evolution telling her to keep it.

Fine, then we cannot allow women to make important decisions while they are PMSing (which can be all the time these days) - maybe they should be restricted to the kitchen and living room during that period ;)

Perhaps more importantly, the founding fathers had it right in restricting voting right to adult males meeting property ownership requirement.

Reality says

ne can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy

Nominated as the most misogynous statement ever made on PatNet. Also, this is proof that one can be both a misogynous and a misandrist.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

ne can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy

Nominated as the most misogynous statement ever made on PatNet. Also, this is proof that one can be both a misogynous and a misandrist.

Nope, just scientific fact; aka Red Pill Reality. You apparently never dealt with pregnant women up close and personal. Like I said before, you argue like a feminist SJW type living in a petri dish.

PCGyver says

Ohhhh I get it so you're saying the man should have 100% choice. I see. That sure is equal

Fallacy of the excluded middle. It could be 50/50 or 70/30 or whatever

Reality says

Abortion is mutilating the woman too.

Dan8267 says

He can avoid all of that by having a vasectomy, which is a lot easier to do and less painful/risky than either abortion or female sterilization.

That's bullshit. Abortion is safe, even safer than modern childbirth.

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

Anyone notice that even Patrick has given up this discussion?

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Abortion is mutilating the woman too.

Most forms of abortion involve more bleeding than vasectomy; so if vasectomy is called "mutilation" then abortion certainly is mutilation. Dan, when it comes to feeling vs. rational thinking regarding women vs. men, I'm inclined to classify you on the side of women thinking with feelings instead of rationality.

The biggest problem with feminism today is that it encourages women to compete with men and be at odds with men. This is not as Nature intended. Men and women are complimentary and natural allies. We need the other to be complete. When survival was a much more pressing issue, divorce was far more rare and only exercised for reasons related to survival (poor provider, prison, excessive violent behavior.) But today's modern world makes survival a given with social programs to ensure people don't starve or freeze if they are at least paying attention. So men and women don't need each other so desperately, and with choice comes strife.

I think a marriage is a situation that challenges two people to become less selfish and more caring toward another person. If that doesn't happen, or one person refuses to make this journey, then divorce should be exercised. Better to be poor than miserable.

Reality says

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

Whether or not a procedure is safe is not relevant to the fact that it's a human rights violation to force it upon another person, especially a medical procedure that has no medical purpose. Your argument is identical to requiring women to have a transvaginal sonogram before getting an abortion. It is morally abhorrent and illegal, and quite frankly despicable and disturbing.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

Whether or not a procedure is safe is not relevant to the fact that it's a human rights violation to force it upon another person, especially a medical procedure that has no medical purpose. Your argument is identical to requiring women to have a transvaginal sonogram before getting an abortion. It is morally abhorrent and illegal, and quite frankly despicable and disturbing.

Nope. Men choosing to have vasectomy undertake the procedure for a very clear medical purpose: avoiding depositing sperm in a woman while enjoying sex. You may want to try that, Dan, considering what a loser you are.

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. A man does not give up his rights simply for having consensual recreational sex. Your statement is as logical as saying that a person gives up his right to bear arms if he ever orders a happy meal from McDonald's.

He acquires a probabilistic responsibility when he deposits sperm in a fertile woman.

Hell, I could make a far better case that people who have children give up their rights to possess firearms because guns in the home are a danger to children. You want to go there?

Only in your deranged mind.

What I find interesting in this thread and as a general trend is that more and more men are stepping in to defend women and put them on a pedestal, so called white knighting (to refrain from the more negative mangina), while women's support for their men or men in general has dropped over generations to pretty much zero. Yet, more women are on anti-depressants than ever and even surveyed happiness is not looking good. Also suicide rates among men (white middle-class mostly) has been skyrocketing. Clearly an observable dichotomy here, there is a good case to be made that feminism, esp. 2nd and 3rd wave has made society far worse.

Reality says

Dan, considering what a loser you are.

Oh, you consider me a loser. You win Internet today.

PCGyver says

Actuall I did not say that. But what ever

Then write more clearly because it sure as hell reads like you did.

justme says

By the way, CDon, perhaps you could summarize that case (Gibbons v. Ogden) for the benefit of all readers? I probably, don't have time to read it today, and I am sure it might be a bit much for others, too.

Sure thing. Ogden was nominally about interstate commerce, but that (and the Art III Sec II cases) have by far the biggest Constitutional impacts on our modern lives. As much as Dan likes to pontificate on the well known "liberty interests" granted to us in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 13th & 14th amendments, in the 200 years post Ogden the Supreme Court clarifies how important Article I section VIII (and Article III Sec II) is to reign in those liberty interests (i.e. another exception to the rule). Let me give you an example:

The law generally makes it such that all citizens are equal and we do not have to assist others. Say you had a roomate, nice guy and all, but he was kind of a wreck. He had no stable job, late or couldnt pay rent, mooched your food, constantly calling you to let him in when he gets locked out, or take him somewhere because his car was broken. You of course are free to help him if you want, but the Constitution makes perfectly clear, you have NO OBLIGATION TO THIS FELLOW CITIZEN WHATSOEVER, and we (the collective) cant force you to personally support or take care of him.

By contrast, say one or both (doesnt matter) custodial or non-custodial parents decide to treat their 5 year old, exactly as they would a roomate... after all, they are fellow citizens with no duty right? So imagine then they seem him around the house or the neighborhood...

- Hey Junior, quit mooching that food and go get your own.
- Wow Junior, what happened to your arm there? That looks bad YOU better go get that checked out!
- Hey, we are headed out of town this week on vacation so you are on your own - have fun!
- Whats that, you need someone to help you? Some social worker to take care of you? Look, I dont have time for that now, go to the internet and figure it out. Oh, you cant read yet? Well, you better do that first.

You may think I'm exaggerating here but only slightly. The juvenile court termination of parental rights cases (styled like "In re. The Matter of S.K. a Minor") I saw in law school often showed no physical abuse, but shocking negligence and abject moral depravity on the part of parents who couldnt be bothered to do shit. One case of a 4 year old girl found snared in the neighbors barbed wire fence still haunts me. This all came to a head in the 90s when technology caught up so Congress instituted multistate laws and databases to track down the deadbeats.

In any event, what Ogden, and Article I section VIII makes clear is that unlike the true "roomate" situation where no citizen has a duty to another, the State can, and has indeed created special protections for the most helpless and vulnerable members of our citizenry that require that others DO INDEED SUPPORT THEM. Thus, the longstanding societal contract codified in I sec VIII (via Ogden, et. al) is that most of you (parents) do care about these fellow citizens (your children), so we give you the right to dominion and control over them (and yes the obligation support them) until their 18. After that, if it turns out they are a louse, or you otherwise dont give a shit, then we (the collective) will provide for them from age 18 til death (iow, they probably wont die in the streets).

Moreover, I/VIII and Ogden et. al make clear that if you (the parent) do not do the minimal amounts required, there is a small chance you will be put in prison, and in any event, rather than having us (the collective) pay for it, its you (the parent)s obligation up until that age of 18 whether you like it or not. And no, this is not something you can contract out of via check the box decisions on a marriage license or otherwise. Congress made this so per its plenary powers in contravention of our liberty interests. IOW the Constitution guarantees that Congress can and in fact does make separate groups "unequal" for whatever reason if there is found to be a "compelling state interest" Examples include child support, affirmative action programs, WIC or Section 8, certain farm subsidies, etc. If you dont like it, vote for people who will change it.

Now, there can obviously be some improvement in the law, and that especially applies to the inherent, systemic bias as it relates to primary custody (which is decidedly feminist). Also, there can be increased accountability to ensure that support payments from the non-custodial parent to the custodial actually go to the kids wellfare, and not just for new shoes or clothes or a car for mom. And the abortion/ carry to term dilemma is a separate liberty interest discussion which I will save for another day. But I what can tell you now is that for someone to whine via a political argument or otherwise, about how they are forced into involuntary servitude or lack of due process in violation of the 13th or 14th amendment, is absurd and a clear indication the person has no idea what they are talking about as it relates to the Constitution.

By the by - for the rest of you Clarrence Darrows out there who are going to figure all this out on Patnet, keep in mind the general rule in place now is the child support is something which almost always runs with the child, no matter where that child is located. Fact of the matter is, if I took in a child as a foster parent, I very well could claim and receive child support from both mom and dad. Same goes for a grandparent taking care of junior - same too for the State depending upon the specific facts and circumstances of mom & dad.

In cases where the parents are deabeats (often) it unfortunately costs more resources (i.e. state employees chasing them at $X per hour) vs recovery to make it worthwhile, but if one or both parents have resources, they can and often are successfully shaken down in various states. And here the laws are truly genderless (so as to survive the appropriate balance test required by Art I section VIII or Art III section II cases which for those who care is the real meat and potatoes of the Constitution in terms of affecting our lives and our society).

As I said before, the real systemic bias is in awarding primary custody and theres also the bias in the abortion (which is actually a separate discussion on limitations to our liberty interests and the ability of others to force you into any medical procedure). Anyway, im out so you all have fun with that!

Lastly - if you all want something fun to debate, we once discussed the case of where a dude ejaculated in a woman's mouth, and then when he wasn't looking used that semen to inseminate herself.

When this came to light, the child did in fact exist so of course he had to pay support because of the bright line rule I noted above. But if I recall correctly, he was able to maintain a civil cause of action against her for "larceny by trick" or something like that. Either way, for those who love endless debate, should he recover monetary damages for this? What say you?

CDon says

Lastly - if you all want something fun to debate, we once discussed the case of where a dude ejaculated in a woman's mouth, and then when he wasn't looking used that semen to inseminate herself.

When this came to light, the child did in fact exist so of course he had to pay support because of the bright line rule I noted above. But if I recall correctly, he was able to maintain a civil cause of action against her for "larceny by trick" or something like that. Either way, for those who love endless debate, should he recover monetary damages for this? What say you?

This was also alleged by former German Tennis Star Boris Becker when a Russian model claimed she had his kid and wanted money. He claimed if it was his she must have taken the sperm out of her mouth to impregnate herself if I recall correctly (don't quote me) - never followed up on how that case was settled. I'm sure though that happens more than we know.

resistance says

Roosh espouses traditional Muslim values about women? Please explain.

@resistance, you might want to see this video of Roosh explaining in his own words, starting at 2:00. He says his ideas come from being raised by his Muslim father and growing up with Muslim beliefs. He says he is "basically introducing traditional Islamic values...because these values are good...." He says all his views come from Islam, and he's been praying to Allah and Mohamed to keep him safe in Canada from Canadian "Islamophobia". He plays the race card on the grounds that he isn't white and so his opponents must check "their privilege." He has elsewhere been accused of threatening to kill people for criticizing Islam (as Islam says to do). Note also he has proposed legalizing rape on private property.

So true.