patrick.net

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.

FP says

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

It's not fair that some people inherent good genes and others are born ugly or with birth defects or genetic disease. It's not fair that some children are born to rich parents and other poor. If it's possible to achieve a higher degree of fairness than demonstrate how. The proposals I gave are the fairest proposals thus far. They are also the most forgiving.

Also, if the father is unwilling, then just the mother would be licensed assuming she meets the fiscal, stability, and responsibility standards.

FP says

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

It's still taking forcibly a man's material possessions and the part of his life he spent earning them. That is, by definition, theft even if it's a legal form of theft. Governments steal all the time. Sometimes it's necessary. Usually it's not.

Dan8267 says

No. The burden is on the person deciding to become a parent.

So still unfair to the child. Ergo, your solution is not a solution (see above where we started from).

Dan8267 says

FP says

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

It is more affordable.

and this makes it better?

Dan8267 says

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.

These things that you listed require very specific skill sets that can be tested. How do you propose to test parenting ability?

FP says

and this makes it better?

Bad spellcheck. I meant enforceable, not affordable. I corrected the mistake right away, but you quoted it before I could.

FP says

These things that you listed require very specific skill sets that can be tested. How do you propose to test parenting ability?

How does CPA do it right now? They have tests to determine if parents are fit. The licensing should be done by CPA. They are the experts. The only thing I'm adding is a requirement that the parents aren't on any form of welfare or child support, because if you need state assistance or someone's unwilling payments, then you cannot afford a child.

Dan8267 says

It's not fair that some people inherent good genes and others are born ugly or with birth defects or genetic disease.

Right, life is not fair. Can't have it good for everybody. So choices are made according to values. My priority is to ensure that all children are given as much equal start as possible.

Dan8267 says

FP says

and this makes it better?

Bad spellcheck. I meant enforceable,

does not make it morally right

FP says

My priority is to ensure that all children are given as much equal start as possible.

You fail at that priority if you reject parental licensing.

Dan8267 says

ou have the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not interfere with other people's rights.

What rights? Their tax dollars?

FP says

does not make it morally right

How is allowing children to be subjected to abject poverty and even death -- many children die from bad parenting -- morally superior?

How is requiring people to be responsible before becoming parents morally wrong? Some states require that you have a license to have a dog or cat. Doesn't having a kid require far more responsibility and expense? We shouldn't let people have dogs and cats if they can't take care of them. Same should be true for children.

I have the moral high ground, not you.

I think FP has a gross ignorance of just how bad poverty is for single mothers and the incredible burden placed on children as a result.

http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/329/poverty-rates-are-higher-among-single-mother-families-regardless-of-race

https://phys.org/news/2015-08-mothers-poverty-fathers.html

It's a damn serious problem in the U.S. and getting worse every year.

Dan8267 says

How is allowing children to be subjected to abject poverty and even death -- many children die from bad parenting -- morally superior?

sterillizing women is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for preventing this

Dan8267 says

I think FP has a gross ignorance of just how bad poverty is for single mothers and the incredible burden placed on children as a result.

No, I don't.

So your solution is to sterilize poor women?

FP says

What rights? Their tax dollars?

Subjecting a man to indentured servitude violates his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is stolen from him in the form of the time it takes him to work to pay child support as well as any jail time for falling behind even if he is fired for no fault of his own. Liberty is directly taken from the man. He loses the ability to pursue happiness from his earnings.

You seem very apathetic to the suffering you so willingly would inflict upon your fellow man.

Now I need to go get my kid from an event.

FP says

sterillizing women is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for preventing this

Prove it. Oh, and the sterilization does not have to be permanent. That's why I said chemical spaying.

FP says

So your solution is to sterilize poor women?

My solution involves preventing women or men from continuing to choose to produce more children when they have failed to take care of the ones they already have. And yes, that is the path of least evil in this situation. It is far less evil than what you propose: slavery, childhood poverty, and debtor prisons (which are in the status quo you are defending). Rapists are chemically castrated so they cannot rape again. The justification is that they should not have the freedom to commit more of the same harm. Why should irresponsible parents be allowed to commit more of the same harm?

Dan8267 says

Prove it.

Ah, nonsense. We both know I'm right. In any case, you are the one who must prove it is necessary and sufficient.

Dan8267 says

It is far less evil than what you propose: slavery, childhood poverty, and debtor prisons (which are in the status quo you are defending).

1. Paying child support is not slavery.

2. See above about necessary and sufficient condition.

3. You and I obviously have different views on evil.