patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,252,054 comments by 14,932 users - DOGEWontAmountToShit, HeadSet, RayAmerica, REpro, Wardsasshole online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 88 - 127 of 335 Next » Last » Search these comments
Dan8267
2017 Jan 22, 12:20pm
Reproduction just gets dominated by often dumber people who don't rationalize against population growth; those who do (rationalize/make excuses in favor of childlessness) get dominated by those who don't, like in Europe, UK and France.
Another great reason to require a license to become a parent.
Another great reason to require a license to become a parent.
why not - one more step towards total surveillance + control state
Dan8267
2017 Jan 22, 5:34pm
Another great reason to require a license to become a parent.
why not - one more step towards total surveillance + control state
So licensing parents is totalitarianism, but holding people indefinitely without trial and torturing them isn't? I think you're looking at the wrong signs.
So licensing parents is totalitarianism, but holding people indefinitely without trial and torturing them isn't?
both are
Dan8267
2017 Jan 22, 6:06pm
So then the mere existence of Child Protective Services is also totalitarianism?
fdhfoiehfeoi
2017 Jan 23, 11:40am
Do you believe abortion should be legal?
legality and morality are two different things. Where does your question fit in with my comment?
So then the mere existence of Child Protective Services is also totalitarianism?
Not really. It is control for sure, but in protection of life that already exists. There has to be compromise between safety, protection and feeedom. Certain freeedoms are very fundamental, and removing them goes too far.
Dan8267
2017 Jan 23, 3:48pm
So then the mere existence of Child Protective Services is also totalitarianism?
Not really. It is control for sure, but in protection of life that already exists. There has to be compromise between safety, protection and feeedom. Certain freeedoms are very fundamental, and removing them goes too far.
Licensing parenting is essentially doing what CPS is designed to do, but being proactive and preventing the problems in the first place.
Having children is not a right. Felons are prevented from having children. So are the people in Gitmo and Abu Grab. Men can't have the right to have children because they must convince a woman to reproduce with them. For all men, having children is a privilege.
Furthermore, why should we as a society value a person's desire to procreate more than the well being of the children he or she would produce? If reproduction were a right, then anti-incest laws violate that right. The entire purpose of anti-incest laws is to prevent deformed children. Why should we allow people who are utterly incapable of taking care of children to have them? Are you OK with a welfare queen having another child after she's already had eight because her desire to reproduce is more important then the well-being of her existing children, the new child she would create, the tax payer's dollars, and other people who will be denied financial support because the money when to this woman having another kid?
That's exactly like saying a woman who dresses provocatively is consenting to sex. They are both fucking stupid statements and for the exact same reason.
Consent is consent. Nothing else is consent.
Except that it's not like it at all. Wearing slutty clothing is just wearing slutty clothing. There is no natural result from dressing provocatively. Maybe you need to take a biology class again or something, but the natural result of having sex is a baby. Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby. That's all there is to it. If you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex.
I agree. You can't have abortion be legal for women, but not allow men the same right to back out of the responsibility. Why do women get that choice and not men? If inserting my penis is consent to having a baby with the woman I'm nailing, then the woman has no right to ever have an abortion.
Considering we are biologically different, the system cannot be perfectly fair. Do you seriously think that if men carried babies, we wouldn't have the right to choose?
Dan8267
2017 Jan 23, 4:49pm
Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby. That's all there is to it.
That's absolute bullshit.
give permission for something to happen.
It is impossible to consent against your will by definition. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a man who consents to having sex is also consenting, even considering, having a baby and devoting his financial assets for the next 18 years to raising that baby. There is every reason to believe that most of the time men want to have sex, they want just to have sex and not to reproduce. If you don't understand that, then you are a moron.
You are trying to take away the relevance of a man's consent by falsely equating consent to have sex as consent to indenture servitude. This is exactly the same thing as falsely equating a woman's consent to be looked over with consent to have sex. You are giving a big fuck you to the will of the people whose rights you are trying to take away. Consent is about willful, non-coerced choice. Consent cannot be taken simply because you think a person should consent to X in order to get Y. That's the opposite of consent. That's force.
You are intellectually dishonest, and your position is morally and ethically reprehensible.
Why don't you have to integrity to say what you really mean, that the consent of a man should not be required to make him into a slave?
I agree. You can't have abortion be legal for women, but not allow men the same right to back out of the responsibility. Why do women get that choice and not men? If inserting my penis is consent to having a baby with the woman I'm nailing, then the woman has no right to ever have an abortion.
Considering we are biologically different, the system cannot be perfectly fair. Do you seriously think that if men carried babies, we wouldn't have the right to choose?
Sure it can be fair. Biology has nothing to do with the argument we're making. It takes 2 people to make a baby. If a woman can back out and not accept responsibility, a man should have that same right unless the 2 are married and both consent to having a baby.
Dan8267
2017 Jan 23, 5:26pm
If a woman can back out and not accept responsibility, a man should have that same right unless the 2 are married and both consent to having a baby.
Agreed. If a man marries a woman with the intent of having children and then back out of it once she is pregnant, he can't retroactively withdraw his consent. Similarly, if a woman chooses to have sex with a man, she can't retroactively withdraw her consent because he didn't call her the next day. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, but never retroactively.
A woman who has had sex with a man many times can withdraw her consent for any sex in the future. The man has the right to dump her or divorce her if she does. A man can withdraw his consent to have children with a woman, but that woman has the right to dump him or divorce him if he does. It's symmetric.
Licensing parenting is essentially doing what CPS is designed to do, but being proactive and preventing the problems in the first place.
No, it is not the same. You cannot be certain in advance that there will or will not be problems and what they will be.
Having children is not a right. Felons are prevented from having children. So are the people in Gitmo and Abu Grab. Men can't have the right to have children because they must convince a woman to reproduce with them. For all men, having children is a privilege.
Prisoners are deprived of many rights. The fact that it takes a couple to reproduce does not mean that such a right cannot exist; it is a right for a couple to reproduce if they so wish, and to a person individually to be a part of such a couple.
If reproduction were a right, then anti-incest laws violate that right. The entire purpose of anti-incest laws is to prevent deformed children.
That is where the compromise "between safety, protection and freeedom" enters.
Why should we allow people who are utterly incapable of taking care of children to have them? Are you OK with a welfare queen having another child after she's already had eight because her desire to reproduce is more important then the well-being of her existing children, the new child she would create, the tax payer's dollars, and other people who will be denied financial support because the money when to this woman having another kid?
If that is the price to pay for certain freedoms that I consider basic - yes. I am not that selfish.
Dan8267
2017 Jan 23, 10:21pm
You cannot be certain in advance that there will or will not be problems and what they will be.
A single mother with no income who's living on welfare isn't prepared to be a parent. Period. So yes, you can tell in advance. Life isn't random. It is intelligible. You can find patterns. You can proactively solve problems.
Prisoners are deprived of many rights.
A right, by definition, cannot be taken away. A freedom that can be taken away is, by definition, a privilege.
That is where the compromise "between safety, protection and freeedom" enters.
It is no less an arbitrary line than where I'm drawing it.
If that is the price to pay for certain freedoms that I consider basic - yes.
The freedom to not be body cavity searched is far more basic than the freedom to reproduce when you cannot take care of the offspring.
RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks
2017 Jan 23, 11:18pm
Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby.
so this means if a woman agrees to go into a man's house, she consents to the possibility of rape?
don't want to get raped? don't go to his house, don't get in his car, etc.
So yes, you can tell in advance. Life isn't random.
Nonsense and you this very well. There are probabilities but not certainty.
A right, by definition, cannot be taken away. A freedom that can be taken away is, by definition, a privilege.
Tell me one right according to your definition that cannot be taken away.
The freedom to not be body cavity searched is far more basic than the freedom to reproduce when you cannot take care of the offspring.
Fine, that is your opinion. Mine is different. Since I have offspring and you don't + I have higher IQ than you, mine should count more than yours.
Dan8267
2017 Jan 24, 8:00am
Nonsense and you this very well. There are probabilities but not certainty.
I hate to break this to you, but we execute people in this country and assign very long prison sentences based on far, far looser guesses about the truth. If certainty were a real requirement for slapping someone with a 20-year sentence, there would be near zero convictions. We bomb nations on the basis of much less accurate knowledge.
A right, by definition, cannot be taken away. A freedom that can be taken away is, by definition, a privilege.
Tell me one right according to your definition that cannot be taken away.
That is a failing of our society. Just because we don't have rights in practice, say because a cop can murder an innocent civilian and face no legal consequences, does not mean we should not have rights.
We should have the right, not the privilege, to vote. Felons should be able to vote while in prison. We should have the right to due process. Suspected terrorists should get due process. We should have the right of Habeas Corpus. All people who are or ever were inprisioned in Gitmo should be able to have a trial and to sue the federal government for human rights violations including torture.
This is what it means to be a nation of laws. Just because the United States government is a shit government that doesn't act according to the principles we all claim to uphold, doesn't mean we shouldn't change our government so that it does and punish individual government agents who violate these principles.
Dan8267
2017 Jan 24, 8:04am
Fine, that is your opinion. Mine is different. Since I have offspring and you don't + I have higher IQ than you, mine should count more than yours.
Honey, don't get your panties in a twist. We're debating a moral and ethical issue. Of course such a debate is going to heavily involve value judgements. If you cannot handle that, then don't engage in debate. Leave that to the adults.
Furthermore, you clearly are not more intelligent than me or you would not have made such a childish comment. Nor does having crapped out a kid give you more rights or the moral high ground. If your ego can't handle a discussion of values and morality, then quite frankly, you seem like another crappy parent who probably shouldn't be one in the first place. If you can't discuss and advocate principles at the level of a mature adult, then how are you setting a good example for your kid?
Furthermore, you clearly are not more intelligent than me or you would not have made such a childish comment....
Hahaha, a little trigger I left for you. Take it easy man (but if you have doubts about the IQ part, we can set up a little competition next time I'm in FL :) )
That is a failing of our society.
Now this is bla-bla-bla.
I think the discussion is exhausted at this point.
Dan8267
2017 Jan 24, 9:09am
Hahaha, a little trigger I left for you.
Get over yourself. Just because I point out your immaturity and made you look foolish, doesn't mean you invoked an emotional response in me other than pity.
I think the discussion is exhausted at this point.
On that we agree. I have refuted everything you said, and you are adding nothing to the conversation.
Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby. That's all there is to it.
That's absolute bullshit.
give permission for something to happen.
It is impossible to consent against your will by definition. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a man who consents to having sex is also consenting, even considering, having a baby and devoting his financial assets for the next 18 years to raising that baby. There is every reason to believe that most of the time men want to have sex, they want just to have sex and not to reproduce. If you don't understand that, then you are a moron.
You are trying to take away the relevance of a man's consent by falsely equating consent to have sex as consent to indenture servitude. This is...
You can throw a hissy fit all you want. The reality is that the natural result of sex is a baby. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says
Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby.
so this means if a woman agrees to go into a man's house, she consents to the possibility of rape?
don't want to get raped? don't go to his house, don't get in his car, etc.
WTF are you talking about? The natural result of going into someone's house is not being raped. The natural result of having sex is a baby. If you guys are too stupid to foresee that sex = baby, then you probably shouldn't be having sex at all.
You can throw a hissy fit all you want.
Translation: I cannot make a rational argument against what you said, so I'll try character assassination and hope the audience is stupid enough to fall for my trick.
No. It was in response to these gems of yours (ahem...character assassination...):
"If you don't understand that, then you are a moron.
You are giving a big fuck you to the will of the people whose rights you are trying to take away.
You are intellectually dishonest, and your position is morally and ethically reprehensible.
Why don't you have to integrity to say what you really mean, that the consent of a man should not be required to make him into a slave?"
RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says
it is the man's sperm. he should be able to do terminate it as he wishes.
He can. It's called a hand (or a sock if you prefer).
RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks
2017 Jan 24, 9:33am
RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says
Having sex is consent to the possibility of a baby.
so this means if a woman agrees to go into a man's house, she consents to the possibility of rape?
don't want to get raped? don't go to his house, don't get in his car, etc.
WTF are you talking about? The natural result of going into someone's house is not being raped. The natural result of having sex is a baby. If you guys are too stupid to foresee that sex = baby, then you probably shouldn't be having sex at all.
sex does not neccessary equate baby, only dumb feminists think so. there are drugs and contraception.
having sex does not automatically means consent to having a baby. don't be a moron.
RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks
2017 Jan 24, 9:34am
having sex means consent to an abortion, period.
Dan8267
2017 Jan 24, 9:35am
Patrick's argument is to either force abortion or not pay.
Patrick is not in favor of forcing women to have an abortion. You are clearly misinterpreting his words. I don't know if that's intentional on your part or not, but you are wrong.
Patrick does point out the hypocrisy of given women unilaterally power on deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy while giving men no say in whether or not to raise the child. In effect, the man has no choice while the woman has absolute choice. If the man wants to become a father and the woman doesn't, he's screwed over. If the man doesn't want to become a father and the woman does, he again is screwed over. Patrick is absolutely correct in pointing out this hypocrisy. Pro-choice goes both ways. Both parents, regardless of their genitalia, should have choice. And whatever limits are placed on those choices, like deciding before the third trimester, should apply equally to both genders. Same rules regardless of sex.
Patrick most certainly is pro-choice, at least up to some point in the pregnancy, for both genders. There is nothing contradictory about that position. It would also be non-hypocritical to say that neither gender should have a choice because the unborn's rights take priority. The only hypocritical position is that one gender has absolute say and the other has none.
If you want to make a pro-life from conception argument, then go ahead, but that argument has nothing to do with equality of reproductive laws. Make a pro-life argument in the classic thread The abortion question answered. Turns out, both sides were wrong.
RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says
having sex means consent to an abortion, period.
No offense, but you are a whack job. You don't make any sense.
Dan8267
2017 Jan 24, 9:37am
RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says
it is the man's sperm. he should be able to do terminate it as he wishes.
He can. It's called a hand (or a sock if you prefer).
Or in CIC's case, a goat.
Dan8267
2017 Jan 24, 9:38am
RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says
having sex means consent to an abortion, period.
No offense, but you are a whack job. You don't make any sense.
It's called a joke. Are you incapable of recognizing one when it's in writing? People like you are the reason sitcoms use laugh tracks. You wouldn't be able to tell when to laugh otherwise.
It's called a joke. Are you incapable of recognizing one when it's in writing? People like you are the reason sitcoms use laugh tracks. You wouldn't be able to tell when to laugh otherwise.
Jokes are supposed to be funny...
Dan8267
2017 Jan 24, 9:39am
No. It was in response to these gems of yours
Honey, you're the one throwing a hissy fit. It is proper to call a morally reprehensible proposal what it is. We are debating values here, and some values are just down right repulsive. They should be strongly opposed.
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Jan 24, 9:40am
He can. It's called a hand (or a sock if you prefer).
Great, so we can ban abortion.
Women can always forgo sex and use their hands or a dildo.
Honey, you're the one throwing a hissy fit. It is proper to call a morally reprehensible proposal what it is. We are debating values here, and some values are just down right repulsive. They should be strongly opposed.
Honey...???
WTF? Who calls someone honey? So bizarre.
My morally reprehensible proposal...you mean the current system that we've had in the country for decades?
Dan8267
2017 Jan 24, 9:43am
He can. It's called a hand (or a sock if you prefer).
Great, so we can ban abortion.
Women can always forgo sex and use their hands or a dildo.
That's exactly the point Patrick was making. The argument that men should have no say in becoming fathers because consent to sex is consent to having a baby applies equally to women. If you reject pro-life from conception, then it is hypocritical to reject men's right to choose not to become fathers.
Patrick does point out the hypocrisy of given women unilaterally power on deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy while giving men no say in whether or not to raise the child. In effect, the man has no choice while the woman has absolute choice. If the man wants to become a father and the woman doesn't, he's screwed over. If the man doesn't want to become a father and the woman does, he again is screwed over. Patrick is absolutely correct in pointing out this hypocrisy. Pro-choice goes both ways. Both parents, regardless of their genitalia, should have choice. And whatever limits are placed on those choices, like deciding before the third trimester, should apply equally to both genders. Same rules regardless of sex.
Yes, a woman has ultimate say in this matter, but men have just as much say up to a point. Once you cross that threshold, too bad. As you said, there are lots of measures to take so that you don't cross that threshold. If you guys are too stupid and pathetic to not have children with the wrong person, then that's on you.
Keep fighting the good fight guys! One day men will be equal such that they can force a woman to either abort their child, put it up for adoption after it grew inside her for 9 months or not properly feed/provide for the child as a single mother. One day!
RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks
2017 Jan 24, 9:53am
RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks says
having sex means consent to an abortion, period.
No offense, but you are a whack job. You don't make any sense.
if you were smarter (like a man) it would have made sense. women achievements in sciences? i rest my case. stay in the kitchen.
Hahaha, a little trigger I left for you.
Get over yourself. Just because I point out your immaturity and made you look foolish
Oops, I must have hit Dan's weak spot. I'll remember it; we'll come back to it again some time.
BTW, immaturity is a compliment for a scientist.
You are taking yourself too seriously for a childless middle aged man rapidly approaching irrelevance.
« First « Previous Comments 88 - 127 of 335 Next » Last » Search these comments
Let's call it the affirmative consent law, requiring men to give affirmative consent to paternity.
This would achieve equality with a woman's "her body her choice" right to ignore the man's request for an abortion or to give the child up for adoption. Rights which only women have.
If she has the right to refuse responsibility for the baby, he should also have the right to refuse responsibility for the baby. In recognition of the biological reality that it is the woman who physically has to have the abortion, if she wants to abort, the man should have to pay the entire financial cost of the abortion.
Married men should be assumed by the fact of marriage to have given their consent to financial support for legitimate biological paternity.
It is not fair that a woman should have the right to entrap a man with one night sex, obligating him to 20 years or more of financial liability, when she has the right to simply opt out of the same situation via abortion or giving up the baby for adoption. Without a man's affirmative consent to paternity, it's rape.
#politics