patrick.net

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

Dan8267 says

Are you in favor of taking away a woman's right to have an abortion?

No.

Then it is utter hypocrisy to force men to become indentured servants for two decades simply because they deserve it. If it's not consent to raise a child when a woman has recreational sex, then it's not when a man does, and for the exact same reasons.

We've gone over this before. Yawn.

ch_tah2 says

We've gone over this before. Yawn.

And you still have not addressed the issue. You merely assert "fuck men, they got laid, they deserve to be punished". This is not a compelling argument.

ch_tah2 says

Because I don't fight for the toothless losers who sleep with women who hate them and then bitch about having to pay for their child...

Unless your a rapist, chances are the woman you sleep with likes you. That's kind of why they sleep with some men and not others.

And if men are "toothless" for not wanting to go through with a pregnancy and raising a child they do not want, then so are women, and for the exact same reason.

Are you saying that any woman who gets an abortion is a toothless, despicable, dead beat? If not, then once again, you are being hypocritical.

It all comes down to this. Both men and women have the right to say no, an no means no!

ch_tah2 says

I meant toothless in the literal sense...as in having no teeth.

No you didn't. Now answer the question.

Are you saying that any woman who gets an abortion is a toothless, despicable, dead beat? If not, then once again, you are being hypocritical.

ch_tah2 says

The term "deadbeat dad" isn't around for nothing.

The only deadbeat dad is the dad who agrees to have a child with a woman and then reneges after the child is born. Men who don't want a child, are honest about it, and then have no say as the woman chooses to go through with the pregnancy anyway aren't deadbeats for leaving. They are escaped slaves. You aren't entitled to someone else's life.

ch_tah2 says

Man, I can't believe Dan seems to be less batshit crazy than you

Disagreeing with your opinions is not insanity. Not having consistent, non-contradicting reasons for believing something is.

There is nothing I have ever written that in any way constitutes any form of craziness. Every fact I've presented has either been true, or in rare cases, immediately refuted once I learned it was inaccurate. I may not be perfect, but I'm damn close because I play devil's advocate with every idea I have. I've attacked my ideas far better than you ever could, and I do that before I present them to anyone. This is why I can hold my ground. If I cannot justify a belief against all challenges, then I do not accept the belief.

ch_tah2 says

Can you comment on patrick's 4 points w/ the abortion modification?

Reference what you mean. This has been a long thread.

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

Can you comment on patrick's 4 points w/ the abortion modification?

Reference what you mean. This has been a long thread.

For fucks sake, I just reposted above. #417

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

The term "deadbeat dad" isn't around for nothing.

The only deadbeat dad is the dad who agrees to have a child with a woman and then reneges after the child is born. Men who don't want a child, are honest about it, and then have no say as the woman chooses to go through with the pregnancy anyway aren't deadbeats for leaving. They are escaped slaves. You aren't entitled to someone else's life.

Tell that to the child...

Exactly (Dan8267):
The only deadbeat dad is the dad who agrees to have a child with a woman and then reneges after the child is born. Men who don't want a child, are honest about it, and then have no say as the woman chooses to go through with the pregnancy anyway aren't deadbeats for leaving. They are escaped slaves. You aren't entitled to someone else's life.

I would agree that "deadbeat" applies to fathers who were "married" to the spouse and children came as the result. Do note that injustices occur in this situation as well. If the woman does not admit to having an affair and bears another man's child, but the husband is unaware - that husband can be considered the actual father according to the courts if he established a relationship with the child. Especially so if the true father is unknown. This is quite common in the courts, and I would urge every husband to paternity test their children, unless they are willing to live with the potential consequences. Moreover, even if you do a pat test, and are found not to be the bio father, if the child is older the courts have found that they are still responsible since they "acted" as the father for some time. Of course, if you are the male "affair partner", if they can ID you, then there is potential to come back for "back child support" as well.

In all of these cases, the state doesn't really care about the rights of the mother or father - but supposedly has the best interest of the child. However, while that may have applied in a world where most children were born "in-wedlock", that is not the case today. So, things that seem illogical or unfair are really done solely in the interest of the child - regardless of either party's post contraception rights.

krc says

I would agree that "deadbeat" applies to fathers who were "married" to the spouse and children came as the result.

Unless both went into the marriage understanding that they wouldn't have children, and then the woman decided that she wanted a child. Some people do get married with the expectation of not having children. This is very common in second marriages.

krc says

In all of these cases, the state doesn't really care about the rights of the mother or father - but supposedly has the best interest of the child.

If that's the case, becoming a parent should require a license, and getting that license should require demonstrating that you don't need any kind of welfare or child support.

Dan, you ever going to answer? Or did you lose the post again?

ch_tah2 says

Dan, you ever going to answer? Or did you lose the post again?

Answer what. I'm not obligated to spend every second catering to you on PatNet. If you have a clear argument or sincere question then present it. I don't avoid issues, but I don't waste my time trying to interpret unintelligible crap.

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

Dan, you ever going to answer? Or did you lose the post again?

Answer what. I'm not obligated to spend every second catering to you on PatNet. If you have a clear argument or sincere question then present it. I don't avoid issues, but I don't waste my time trying to interpret unintelligible crap.

Post #417...

Since you might be having trouble finding it...it's the one after #416 and the one before #418.

Post 417 to me is

Dan8267 says

417   Dan8267   12:11pm today   tweet   ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   edit

It all comes down to this. Both men and women have the right to say no, an no means no!

PatNet doesn't use consistent numbering due to server-side filtering of posts. Quote the post you mean.

ch_tah2 says

Since you might be having trouble finding it...it's the one after #416 and the one before #418.

I love it when people ignorant of a subject matter get cocky. How does that help me if your #416 and #418 differs from mine?

I thought you were gonna say that if you can't find #417, you probably can't find #416 or #418.

ok, for the third time (this was in response to patrick's 4 options):

So it sounds like the biggest issue to you is her right to choose an abortion. With Trump as president and if Ginsberg retires or passes away, that right to an abortion could go away. If that's what happens, then your possible cases become:
1) they both want it, they both have responsibility
2) he doesn't want it, she doesn't want it. She's forced to birth the baby, but afterwards, they put it up for adoption or abandon it at the firehouse.
3) he does want it, she doesn't want it. She pays child support.
4) he doesn't want it, she does want it. He pays child support.

Other than the aspect of removing a woman's right to an abortion, everyone has equal rights in this situation. What do you think Patrick? Would removing her right to have an abortion be enough for the MJWs?

Given the initiative process in CA, does anyone believe we could successfully implement laws/changes that could correct this injustice? Something that would throw a bone to everyone: if you are in a married relationship and have a child, both parties are responsible (this protects the family unit and the taxpayer). IF you are not married (living together or not), then males would have the right to refuse financial entanglement. The female would retain the right to have the child or abort in either case.

The question always becomes what is the taxpayer roll for supporting a "fatherless" child? Let's recognize the fact that the state will not refuse to support a mother and child - period. So, then, how would you craft an initiative process that could actually pass? I know licensing was discussed, but the courts and legislatures are loath to get into reproductive rights licensing, for many of the reasons discussed in this thread already.

FP says

I would like to congratulate Patrick for creating an internet forum that has apparently become such a big part of the lives of some people.

Thanks! I don't make money at it, so it's nice to have it appreciated.

If you want to help, share an interesting link from patrick.net with someone, to introduce them to it.

Sounds like piggy is still upset because he has a miserable life and hasn't gotten any new pussy (or dick) in 40+ years. Misery loves company. Trolls are people with miserable lives.

ch_tah2 says

So it sounds like the biggest issue to you is her right to choose an abortion.

Hardly. I'm entirely in favor of women having the right to abort a pregnancy in the first trimester. Read my classic thread The abortion question answered. Turns out, both sides were wrong. I go into exquisite detail on what should be legal and what should be illegal and why.

ch_tah2 says

With Trump as president and if Ginsberg retires or passes away, that right to an abortion could go away.

No chance in hell. Even if a bunch of dumbass conservatives overturn Roe v. Wade, the public wants legal abortions enough to take up arm. There would be people with AK-47s guarding abortion clinics, and the cops won't risk their lives to stop abortions. This is actually an issue the public would get violent to protect. I wouldn't be surprised if congressmen who tried to outlaw abortions were assassinated.

But hey, I'd love to see Trump try. It would motivate the vast majority of Americans against conservatives and the Republican Party.

[stupid comment limit]

ch_tah2 says

3) he does want it, she doesn't want it. She pays child support.

4) he doesn't want it, she does want it. He pays child support.

Three and four do not logically follow from abortion being illegal. If the couple puts the baby up for adoption, then neither pays child support. If one parent decides to keep and raise the baby, then that parent is effectively adopting the baby away from the other and still merits no child support. This is true regardless of the gender of the parent who raises the child.

The illegality of abortion would not justify indentured servitude.

ch_tah2 says

Other than the aspect of removing a woman's right to an abortion, everyone has equal rights in this situation. What do you think Patrick? Would removing her right to have an abortion be enough for the MJWs?

I am almost certain that Patrick's beliefs on this issue are identical to mine, which are... Equal rights under law isn't about removing rights from other people. It's about protecting everyone's rights. I am not upset that women get to unilaterally decide whether or not to have an abortion. Yes it sucks for men who really want to keep and raise the child, but since women bear the pregnancy, they must have the unilateral decision of whether or not to continue it.

Equal rights isn't about being spiteful that someone else has something you don't. If there were a just way to give men equal say in keeping the pregnancy, I'd be all for it, but there is not, and I have no spite towards women for that fact.

Making abortion illegal would make the genders equal in the same way that taking away everyone's life would. If we're all dead, we're all equal. Sure, it's equality, but it's equality achieved by taking a step in the wrong direction. Men's rights is not about taking away women's rights, but protecting men's rights and equality under law, at least as much as is possible. Reproduction is the one and only area where perfect equality cannot be reached, but we can get damn close.

So I call for ending slavery in all its forms:
- indentured servitude of men in the form of child support and alimony (and the same for the rare cases where women are indentured servants)
- ending prison slavery (chain gangs, license plate making, etc.)
- economic slavery through exploitation
- subjugation of the public by militarized police

[stupid comment limit]

As for the term men's rights movement, it's just like the term feminism. It has no definition. It has no agreed upon meaning. If you ask a hundred people what the term means, you'll get a hundred different and contradicting definitions. I don't care about nomenclature other than to make communication clear and honest. What matters is the platform being advocated.

I'm a liberal. Liberals believe in
- equality under law. We all have the same rights, and no privileges
- liberty. If you aren't violating another person's rights, you can do what you want. No victimless crimes.
- transparency. The government is owned by the people, not the reverse. What the powerful do needs to be watched by the public, not the reverse.

As a rationalist, I see no point in favoring one gender over another. Half of your descendants are going to be male, and half female. Why screw over either half?

Also, any zero sum games between genders or among ethnic groups are pointless and only serve to decrease the happiness of all groups and individuals.

I'm speaking for myself, but I strongly suspect Patrick agrees with everything I said above in the past two posts.

Dan8267 says

I'm speaking for myself, but I strongly suspect Patrick agrees with everything I said above in the past two posts.

Yes, absolutely!

Dan8267 says

As a rationalist, I see no point in favoring one gender over another. Half of your descendants are going to be male, and half female. Why screw over either half?

I agree, but there is indeed a point underlying the arguments. The point of fomenting division along the lines of race and sex is to gain power by making some group very angry and therefore likely to vote for you, or keep your funding going for feminist or racist projects. They don't care if it's bad for the country as long as it gets them some power.

ch_tah2 says

So it sounds like the biggest issue to you is her right to choose an abortion.

I totally agree with Dan. Would definitely not take away any woman's right to choose!

I just think men should have equal rights with women. If they can choose to have it against his wishes, he should be able to choose to withdraw support.

It's only fair.

rando says

It's only fair.

But not to the child.

rando says

Yes, absolutely!

I'm glad I didn't misrepresent your position. One always does go out on a limb when presenting what he thinks someone else thinks, but usually you can tell from what others write what their position is, as long as they write clearly and intelligible.

rando says

The point of fomenting division along the lines of race and sex is to gain power by making some group very angry and therefore likely to vote for you, or keep your funding going for feminist or racist projects. They don't care if it's bad for the country as long as it gets them some power.

This is very true, and it should be opposed heavily. Both the left and the right engage in this tactic. Being conservatives, both believe the ends justify the means. They don't.

Even if you could justify a short-term gain by using such a tactic, the long-term consequences always outweigh whatever you get.

FP says

rando says

It's only fair.

But not to the child.

It's not fair to the child to be brought into the world without willing parents.

Again, this is why parenting should require a license. It's completely unfair for a child to be born into poverty, or to a crazy single parent that cannot raise him or even take care of herself because she's bipolar. Or to parents who are too immature to raise a child, or too lazy, or too unwilling to sacrifice and work hard. Or that already has eight kids and lives on welfare. The only solution is requiring a license backed by testing people for their ability to parent.

"But not to the child"
And that is the rub and is what is used by the government to use its enormous power to adversely affect men through the child support system. The system is archaic and was meant for a time long ago when the family was intact - and makes sense for marriages where the implication is that child rearing was agreed upon by both parties (otherwise why get married - though I do realize that some marry not simply to pro-create - but that is the exception). Now, the government is applying unjustified coercion of the man on behalf of two parties: the child and the woman who deliberately carries to term the child knowing full well the man was not committed to raising this child.

For parties that were married, it makes sense to act in the best interests of the child (from the gov perspective), as the government is trying to recreate a situation where the child is not deprived of resources that would have been otherwise available if the marriage was intact. Of course, no fault divorce has made the dissolution of a family that much easier. In any case, government is trying t apply the same standard to one-night stands which is patently silly on the face of it.

I would agree that the only truly "fair" way would be to outlaw abortion. Both parties would know the ramifications of a pregnancy and one party would not have power over the other. The next best thing would be a second tier type of support for the unmarried situations- perhaps a 50/50 cost sharing not based on income (today, the higher earning party is completely screwed) or some other system that does not incentivize the woman to lie about taking the pill or to dump the contents of condom into her vagina.

Dan8267 says

It's not fair to the child to be brought into the world without willing parents.

and your solution is?

License parenting. If you can't afford the kid without getting welfare or child support payments, you don't get to have the kid. If you do have a kid without getting a license first, CPA is all over your ass watching everything you do like your on probation. Also, mandatory birth control or chemical spaying until you meet the licensing requirement if you have a kid w/o a license. If you cannot take care of the kid, CPA takes it away and your wages are garnished. Both you and the kid are not eligible for a parental license until you have paid back the state for the cost of raising the child. Society will eat the cost for some people, but they are prevented from having descendants. This creates an evolutionary pressure to not be a parasite and to be a productive member of society.

Childhood poverty would be eliminated, as would most bad parenting.

Dan8267 says

If you do have a kid without getting a license first, CPA is all over your ass watching everything you do like your on probation.

But an unwilling father pays child support?

Dan8267 says

chemical spaying

And this is better than forcing a woman to abort, which you are against?

Also:

1. How does this fit your liberal beliefs:
- "equality under law. We all have the same rights, and no privileges"
-" liberty. If you aren't violating another person's rights, you can do what you want."

2. Still no fair solution for all parties (mother, father, and child) when a child is born to licensed parents but unwilling father.

FP says

rando says

It's only fair.

But not to the child.

@FP So it's ok for women to steal from men as long as it's "for the benefit of" the child?

rando says

@FP So it's ok for women to steal from men as long as it's "for the benefit of" the child?

1. steal is not the correct word

2. it is not women per se but society who forces men to support their children

3. I am fine with the burden being transferred to society under certain circumstances

FP says

But an unwilling father pays child support?

No. The burden is on the person deciding to become a parent. If that person is the mother and she chooses to not have an abortion, she's on the hook. If that person is the father, and the mother agrees to bear the child only to give it to the father and not be a mother herself, then he's on the hook. Again, equality and choice.

Liberty means you are free to make your own choices in life. It does not mean you are free from the consequences of those choices.

FP says

And this is better than forcing a woman to abort, which you are against?

It is more enforceable.

You have the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not interfere with other people's rights. Using taxpayer dollars just to get your genes passed on does interfere with other people's rights. Forcing a man into indenture servitude does interfere with other people's rights. The woman still has the choice of whether or not she goes through with becoming a parent. She does not have the choice to freeload at other people's expenses or to inflict persistent poverty onto her child.

FP says

Also:

1. How does this fit your liberal beliefs:

- "equality under law. We all have the same rights, and no privileges"

Reproduction isn't a right. It's a responsibility same as driving, flying, practicing medicine, and everything else that requires a license. We license things to avoid dilemmas.