patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,191,920 comments by 13,863 users - Ceffer, Patrick, The_Deplorable, UkraineIsTotallyFucked online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 79 - 99 of 99 Search these comments
Dan8267
2016 Feb 5, 9:22am
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.
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.
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Feb 5, 9:58am
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
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.
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.
Shaman
2016 Feb 5, 10:19am
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.
Dan8267
2016 Feb 5, 10:41am
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.
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.
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.
Dan8267
2016 Feb 5, 12:34pm
Dan, considering what a loser you are.
Oh, you consider me a loser. You win Internet today.
Dan8267
2016 Feb 5, 12:35pm
Actuall I did not say that. But what ever
Then write more clearly because it sure as hell reads like you did.
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?
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.
curious2
2016 Jul 25, 10:13pm
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.
« First « Previous Comments 79 - 99 of 99 Search these comments
Women, and women alone, currently have the choice to abort a pregnancy or give a baby up for adoption. Men have zero choice in abortion or adoption, yet decades of legal obligation -- entirely at the discretion of the woman. The man has all the obligations and the woman has all the rights. This is obviously unfair.
The law should be made fair. Men should have at least as much control as women over whether or not to have and therefore support children. Namely:
1. If a woman does not tell a man she is pregnant with his child until it is too late to have an abortion, she has zero claim to child support.
2. If a woman does tell a man she is pregnant with his child while an abortion is still possible, and he requests an abortion, then she has a choice:
a: abort the child
b: refuse to abort the child, but give up all claim to child support
3. If both the woman and the man agree to have the child, then both are obligated to support it.
It's only basic fairness that both parties have equal rights and responsibilities. His body, his choice.
Edit -- Of course the assumption here is that the couple is not married. If they are married, he has already promised to support any children he has with her.
#redpill #feministhypocrisy