Does the 13th amendment make forced Child support illegal?

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I agree completely. I find it interesting that no single person has addressed the Constitutional issues from the opposing view. The Constitution doesn't allow for double-standards, yet here we are...in a nation that embraces (hardly notices, mostly) a host of double standards. I'm reading Ron Paul's "The Revolution" at the moment and it is really shocking how that document is ignored, not just by ordinary people, which is understandable, but also by our courts and legislators. The depressing thing is that without an informed and engaged populace, the thugs we call politicians run roughshod over our constitutionally protected freedom, and our "laws" often reward special interests at the expense of these liberties. It is depressing, and this thread actually depresses me further, both the lack of focused debate, and the disinterest in constitutional principles. Nonetheless, nice job on the thread. I'll stay tuned for a rational argument from the other side, but I'm not holding my breath.




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 



Heres a interesting article.

Excerpt:



Winning men's active support for the ERA may be easier today. During recent years, men's consciousness about their own issues has been raised substantially and the momentum is upward. Men are growing aware of how the narrow gender-role conditioning they receive during society's indoctrination of them to become protectors and providers negatively affects both their emotional and physical health. They learn that, on average, men not only live 7 years less than women, but men's quality of life is reduced in trying to live up to this restrictive gender role.

Men are grieving, publicly and privately, for the loss of their fathers and their distance from their own children. They are learning how welfare rules and our father-negative "family" courts separate caring fathers from their children. They are dismayed by the contribution that fatherless families have to the increase in homeless and runaway children, and to teenage suicide, academic failure, drug abuse, violence and unwed pregnancy.

At the same time that women have control over their parenthood through abortion or adoption, men's reproductive rights are either ignored or condescendingly dismissed. Men lack the "right to choose" legal fatherhood, but have the responsibility of financial support. Further, men have no corresponding right to either custody or noncustodial access to their children.

Gaining Equal Rights for Men



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 

I agree 100% on all of it. Both You and Myself have posted Great points on why it is fact Unconstitutional while the people that have opposing views have stated nothing but arguments based on their own opinions based on their own Morality.

Thank You for the compliments and Thank You for Your contributions.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by Adamanteus
 

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I agree completely. I find it interesting that no single person has addressed the Constitutional issues from the opposing view. The Constitution doesn't allow for double-standards, yet here we are...in a nation that embraces (hardly notices, mostly) a host of double standards. I'm reading Ron Paul's "The Revolution" at the moment and it is really shocking how that document is ignored, not just by ordinary people, which is understandable, but also by our courts and legislators. The depressing thing is that without an informed and engaged populace, the thugs we call politicians run roughshod over our constitutionally protected freedom, and our "laws" often reward special interests at the expense of these liberties. It is depressing, and this thread actually depresses me further, both the lack of focused debate, and the disinterest in constitutional principles. Nonetheless, nice job on the thread. I'll stay tuned for a rational argument from the other side, but I'm not holding my breath.


Star for you.

I agree. If our country has striven for equal rights to all, The double standards are the very thing blocking the true meaning of equal.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
You all still arguing about this, it's all been said a million times. Stay away from female types. till you have the means, patience to deal with there unsanity, and a good lawyer seems to be a must now a day's. All that 13th amendment is bunk, if one wanted to one could turn it inside out and upside down, just like all words and laws, and you can reach for any statistic you want, and grasp any straw you want to justify whatever you think is right, it still don't mean squat. And I think I don't need to tell anyone here on what the legal system is about, yup it is not a fun thing, best to avoid it, it will hit you were it hurts, it might even be more beneficial to stay in that broken relationship, then to be under the heal of the law. At least till you can move on, in a more peaceful and less traumatic way.

Your pretty much screwed when you decided to get with a female, and I think that is the way it should be, till this whole male by female mating requirement for offspring's thing ends, I see no reason to change it. And not because females are any different, and they do get around no doubt about that. And will use anything they can to there advantage and are not always about there "kids". But because the only way to learn is the hard way, and we can't be having a bunch of unwanted kids on the streets it's not good, or people running around boning each other left and right and not think of the consequences, for there are always consequences.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons



!=






This short post says it all in two pictures, ladies and gentlemen, it's not like it was ever hard to miss seeing it.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
You all still arguing about this, it's all been said a million times. Stay away from female types. till you have the means, patience to deal with there unsanity, and a good lawyer seems to be a must now a day's. All that 13th amendment is bunk, if one wanted to one could turn it inside out and upside down, just like all words and laws, and you can reach for any statistic you want, and grasp any straw you want to justify whatever you think is right, it still don't mean squat. And I think I don't need to tell anyone here on what the legal system is about, yup it is not a fun thing, best to avoid it, it will hit you were it hurts, it might even be more beneficial to stay in that broken relationship, then to be under the heal of the law. At least till you can move on, in a more peaceful and less traumatic way.

Your pretty much screwed when you decided to get with a female, and I think that is the way it should be, till this whole male by female mating requirement for offspring's thing ends, I see no reason to change it. And not because females are any different, and they do get around no doubt about that. And will use anything they can to there advantage and are not always about there "kids". But because the only way to learn is the hard way, and we can't be having a bunch of unwanted kids on the streets it's not good, or people running around boning each other left and right and not think of the consequences, for there are always consequences.


Ahh so males have to bear the full burden(because women are now "liberated") of sexuality as a mechanism to keep sexuality down because yous can't shame women anymore. Your reasoning is why the Church and most "conservative" institutions(other than fiscal conservative and libertarianism) are dieing. Your reasoning is no different than the reasoning that Stalin used in this infamous quote: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic".

Words have no meaning to you, human suffering has no meaning to you, because from your perspective you think they "deserve it?". I could name a few mental conditions that cause people to think as such.

Anyone with a healthy conscience cannot stand by and watch as people suffer, and the line "it is for the greater good" rings hollow and untrue.

Slavery is immoral period. Slavery is an affront to nature, intellectualism, enlightenment, reason, and progress.

And in the end your entire reason is "people only learn through suffering, watching other people suffer is OK if I think they deserve it" fails to hold up to the basic definition of reason, it is not your reasoning but your self rationalization to justify advocating madness.

There is a big difference between rationalism/reason and rationalization/ justification of madness-slippery slope.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by joechip
To elaborate upon my previous point; the supreme court decided, upon principles of privacy, that the government could not, legally, force parenthood upon a citizen in Roe v,. Wade. In other words, sex is most assuredly NOT a contract for children. A woman also knows what her eggs "do," but that in no way means she has entered into a contract when she has sex.


Hiding behind a woman's uterus to squirm away from being a man again. Amazing. You try to get away from your own decisions and consequences by trying to make it out that women having rights is oppressive to you, and then try to save your own hide by throwing women out in front as a distraction.

I mean, some brats hide behind their Mommies when they do stupid things. But I guess you consider it a man's prerogative to hide behind a woman's uterus while trying to lie your way into being a victim of your own decisions.


This is NOT what this decision meant. Lies, damn lies, and statistics indeed.

Your wanting to protect your WALLET isn't the same as a woman legally being allowed to own her own body.


as a side note, stop falling for feminist trolls guy's.

Look at the above quoted text and pay attention to how the author of the quote perceives gender and social structure/roles. The author clearly views women as having the right to be free from limited gender roles in one breathe, while in another she/he demands highly oppressive gender roles placed on males.

And then uses shaming tactic's to enforce her/his viewpoint on the matter. The only way to get past all this is a slight change of how we view it. Break it all down to female=human, male= human.

Some humans are allowed to be free of gender roles and social expectations while other humans have a gun to the back of their head forcing them to comply with gender roles and social expectations no matter how harsh or unfair.

This strain of feminism as I think espoused by the author of the quote is Gender Feminism, I refer to it as the "female supremacist" strain of feminism(as a liberal feminist{if they still exist?} would laugh the authors reasoning into a trash can). That strain(Gender Feminism) has it's roots in the failed Lesbian Separatist movements of the 60's-70's.

You have to know those that seek to enslave you if your ever to know how to stay free.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
I dont know about the US system, but here people that earn minimal amount for survival or less do not pay child support, nor do they go to prison if they cannot pay. Only if they can pay, but dont, then punishing them is the right choice.

When you bring a child into this world, you are responsible for his wellbeing, and it is your duty to do everything you can to assure that wellbeing. Irresponsible parenting is a serious crime.

edit on 8/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I dont know about the US system, but here people that earn minimal amount for survival or less do not pay child support, nor do they go to prison if they cannot pay. Only if they can pay, but dont, then punishing them is the right choice.

When you bring a child into this world, you are responsible for his wellbeing, and it is your duty to do everything you can to assure that wellbeing. Irresponsible parenting is a serious crime.

edit on 8/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


In the US if your a male(man or boy) and become so injured you can't work they will still throw you in jail if you fall behind. In America if your homeless+disability they will still throw you in jail, unless of course you have the V card.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by joechip
 

I agree 100% on all of it. Both You and Myself have posted Great points on why it is fact Unconstitutional while the people that have opposing views have stated nothing but arguments based on their own opinions based on their own Morality.

Thank You for the compliments and Thank You for Your contributions.



In Australia it's the law and a just law i believe ,although you won't go to jail for non payment,being a dead beat dad is looked down on here,we don't have alimony payments here,don't have kids and your not paying anyone anything,



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Travlla

Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by joechip
 

I agree 100% on all of it. Both You and Myself have posted Great points on why it is fact Unconstitutional while the people that have opposing views have stated nothing but arguments based on their own opinions based on their own Morality.

Thank You for the compliments and Thank You for Your contributions.



In Australia it's the law and a just law i believe ,although you won't go to jail for non payment,being a dead beat dad is looked down on here,we don't have alimony payments here,don't have kids and your not paying anyone anything,


Well Australia also has a much lower(10% I believe) income tax, and if I remember correctly Australia also has a lower child support amounts.

In America imagine you make $40,000 a year. of that 40,000 you are liable for 50% of ii(if your lucky) coming out in child support. But then your also liable for the 24ish%(maybe higher) federal, state and local taxes.

So even if you make 40k a year, after child support and tzes your left with around 11-14,000 dollars. Which is right at the poverty line. So in order to "empower" women to be independent requires millions of men to live at the poverty line. And the kicker, trust me it is a big one, is that when the government looks at the income of the Mother and Father they only see the money made before the government get's involved. They still see it like the guy is bringing home 40k(like 30ishk after taxes) and the mother only bringing home 20kish(before she gets child support). So the feminist controlled government can then justify further increasing Child Support amounts.

And remember that is if he is lucky. Some guy's who couldn't even afford attorneys are required to pay up to 80% of their pre-tax income in child support.

Fathers should help to take care of their children, but if a father is forced to become homeless or winds up in jail because of excessive child support amounts he can't really do the most important thing a father can do, be their for his kid's.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by Travlla

Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by joechip
 

I agree 100% on all of it. Both You and Myself have posted Great points on why it is fact Unconstitutional while the people that have opposing views have stated nothing but arguments based on their own opinions based on their own Morality.

Thank You for the compliments and Thank You for Your contributions.



In Australia it's the law and a just law i believe ,although you won't go to jail for non payment,being a dead beat dad is looked down on here,we don't have alimony payments here,don't have kids and your not paying anyone anything,


Well Australia also has a much lower(10% I believe) income tax, and if I remember correctly Australia also has a lower child support amounts.

In America imagine you make $40,000 a year. of that 40,000 you are liable for 50% of ii(if your lucky) coming out in child support. But then your also liable for the 24ish%(maybe higher) federal, state and local taxes.

So even if you make 40k a year, after child support and tzes your left with around 11-14,000 dollars. Which is right at the poverty line. So in order to "empower" women to be independent requires millions of men to live at the poverty line. And the kicker, trust me it is a big one, is that when the government looks at the income of the Mother and Father they only see the money made before the government get's involved. They still see it like the guy is bringing home 40k(like 30ishk after taxes) and the mother only bringing home 20kish(before she gets child support). So the feminist controlled government can then justify further increasing Child Support amounts.

And remember that is if he is lucky. Some guy's who couldn't even afford attorneys are required to pay up to 80% of their pre-tax income in child support.

Fathers should help to take care of their children, but if a father is forced to become homeless or winds up in jail because of excessive child support amounts he can't really do the most important thing a father can do, be their for his kid's.


10% income tax,i wish i pay about 27% some pay 48%,we have a 10 %GST (sales tax) and no i don't think putting someone into to poverty to pay CS is right,i believe CS should be paid but the amounts you guys have to pay is insane,



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by Maslo
I dont know about the US system, but here people that earn minimal amount for survival or less do not pay child support, nor do they go to prison if they cannot pay. Only if they can pay, but dont, then punishing them is the right choice.

When you bring a child into this world, you are responsible for his wellbeing, and it is your duty to do everything you can to assure that wellbeing. Irresponsible parenting is a serious crime.

edit on 8/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


In the US if your a male(man or boy) and become so injured you can't work they will still throw you in jail if you fall behind. In America if your homeless+disability they will still throw you in jail, unless of course you have the V card.


Well, then the CS law has to be changed, that is really draconian, and ultimately counterproductive even for the CS receivers.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 





Ahh so males have to bear the full burden(because women are now "liberated") of sexuality as a mechanism to keep sexuality down because yous can't shame women anymore. Your reasoning is why the Church and most "conservative" institutions(other than fiscal conservative and libertarianism) are dieing. Your reasoning is no different than the reasoning that Stalin used in this infamous quote: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic".


Um no wrong, you have to bear the burden that you got yourself in, and the system will take you for a ride because thats what its designed to do, and since in most cases the males got the money, well who do you think the courts will go for. It has nothing to do with shaming women, they can achieve that by themselves they need no help doing that, it's simple really. You made a choice, and now you have to pay for that choice, and there are people who handle these type of things better, and come to a compromise, and really thats the best you can hope for.



Words have no meaning to you, human suffering has no meaning to you, because from your perspective you think they "deserve it?". I could name a few mental conditions that cause people to think as such.

Look I'm all for ending suffering and all that, but sorry buddy I'm thinking of the bigger picture here and like they all whine about. "Wont some please think of the children" So if you get a female pregnant, well that is no ones fault other then yours, and really why are you looking for understanding in that, it's as simple as this. You stuck your weenie in the wrong place ie wrong female, which produced a kid, and someone has to pay for that, I nominate the one/ones who did the act. And yes I agree that the system is set up against men more often then not, but still having a kid is not like stealing candy from the grocery store, it has a long lasting and troubling effect on many things.



Anyone with a healthy conscience cannot stand by and watch as people suffer, and the line "it is for the greater good" rings hollow and untrue.


Well if it is actually for the greater good, then I can stand by and watch you whine that your suffering all day long. But if it's not, well then make your case, and here, or in the courts if you put it in the right context, then you will be heard. Thats about all that anybody can promise. Personally I think all this thing could be solved without the use of a court or judiciary system, since they are mostly in favor of there interest, but thats just me, I guess I'm crazy.



Slavery is immoral period. Slavery is an affront to nature, intellectualism, enlightenment, reason, and progress.


U'm OK, but at the end of the day, there still is a kid around somewhere and he or she did not get there by magical reasons, the stork didn't drop the kid off and take off, and someone has to pay for that kid. I really don't see it as slavery, the system and courts might be taking advantage of you, and thats why I said to solve this before you get the courts involved.

And I can't believe there are not more lawyers to go up for mens rights, It could be a gold mine for them what with all the divorce rates going on, they could play both fields more often. But all in all like anything in human making it's a half ass'd system that barely works, but actually manages to do something if barely. But it's still better then letting a bunch of kids running around on the streets like they have in other poorer countries or the past, just because people like to have sex. It just serves as more fodder for unscrupulous people, to take advantages of them ever hear of child labor or slavery. And as I am sure you and anybody who has been in that court setting is aware of the unscrupulous people who like to take advantages, and always be right. Well it was like that for them kids, only on a couple time the order of magnitude bigger. So really your enemy is unscrupulous people, and those who think that actions don't have reactions or consequences.



And in the end your entire reason is "people only learn through suffering, watching other people suffer is OK if I think they deserve it" fails to hold up to the basic definition of reason, it is not your reasoning but your self rationalization to justify advocating madness.


No I don't think that, I just think that everybody should know what there getting themselves into when they bring a kid into the world, and how the system is set up to "fix" that problem, and I think it could all have been avoided, with a little clarity of thought and reasoning. But if it was not avoided, then you can't expect me to feel sorry for you, because you say, "oh it's unfair". Of course it's unfair, there is nothing fair in it, and if you have a better plan or idea or how to make things more fair, then spill it, and get it out there so things can begin to change, till then it's just pissing against the wind.



There is a big difference between rationalism/reason and rationalization/ justification of madness-slippery slope.

Ya and when I hear reason, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But I still nominate you for paying for the consequences of your actions, and its a mad mad world out there, rationalizing itself as being fair, but alas there is nothing new under the sun, and those who believe in fairness are the ones who rationalize the most madness. I don't believe in fairness, just a more balanced framework, but mostly I believe that it's your problem, so therefore you should pay for it, not the kid and not the tax payers, and not some stranger, but those who caused it in the first place, be they male or female, I really don't care.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Adamanteus
 


Its not in any way involuntary servitude, but it is interesting to hear that people could be jailed for not paying it. Sounds an awful lot like debtors prison.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 


Oh God no, I don't have kid's. I just feel that slavery is both morally wrong and from a historical perspective it holds back human advancement. So I also view it as an inherent(regardless of intent) act of treason against our species(I am also against cheap labor for the same reason).

You don't have to be directly effected by something to be moved by it. The slavery is going on today is no different then what went on in the old South. You have the slaves(fathers), slave holders(mothers), slave whippers(Police) and you have those that benefit from the fruits of slavery(Judges,Lawyers, Bureaucrats).

Also slavery goes against my religious/spiritual beliefs as well. And guess what? If compulsorily CS was outlawed it would force and enable the return of the family at lower socioeconomic levels. The only people who would suffer would be middle class women that want the benefits of a two income family but the independence to keep from being bored.

And how many guy's out their are really such pieces of ^&%$ they would see their own kid's on the street or in rags rather than take their own kid's in? I would wager not many. In-fact very, very few. But because of a few scumbags and the women that churn out babies by them all guy's are made to suffer? NOTY.

P.S all those draconian law's haven't done squat to force the really really bad scumbags to grow up and accept their responsibility. The payment rate is somewhat the same(when accounting for the depression and changes in population, increase in custodial fathers) as before all these compulsorily law's where put into place to nab all those "deadbeats".

We can argue semantics and morality all you want, but the cold truth is that if these policies continue the future will be a very bleak place, if there is a future at all. Guy's like you(White Knights who think men should fall on their swords for women at the whim of women) are becoming fewer and fewer. Manginas are very few and a mostly suicidal bunch. While on the other hand the number of guy's who are waking up to everything is increasing by the day. Then again if I misjudged you and your a nihilist, then any further debate would be pointless as the end results of the current policies would be acceptable.

Because if the SHTF and America has to use the draft or be destroyed, and with a growing number of males who know they are being discriminated against and enslaved + the prideful defiance of youth(combined with anti-male discrimination in education, employment, healthcare and other areas of life), there is no way the West, let alone America could field large enough armies to defend themselves in the advent of an all out war.

Why do you think Congress is trying to green light putting women on front line infantry? Because many of them know in the advent of another engagement they will have to rely on women for front line infantry.

Then their is the risk of Sharia law and islamification of America. Look at all the African American male converts to Islam. They where the first and hardest group to be hit by all this garbage. So it is only a matter of time until we start to see other groups of American males convert to either Islam or equally insane cult groups or fatalistic hate groups.

Nothing good comes from slavery; and the only lesson pain teaches is the lesson of hatred. A lesson were nothing is truly learned and everything is lost.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 





You don't have to be directly effected by something to be moved by it. The slavery is going on today is no different then what went on in the old South. You have the slaves(fathers), slave holders(mothers), slave whippers(Police) and you have those that benefit from the fruits of slavery(Judges,Lawyers, Bureaucrats).


Ay the more things change the more they stay the same.



And how many guy's out their are really such pieces of ^&%$ they would see their own kid's on the street or in rags rather than take their own kid's in? I would wager not many. In-fact very, very few. But because of a few scumbags and the women that churn out babies by them all guy's are made to suffer? NOTY.


Dont know didn't count them but they do exist thats for sure.



The payment rate is somewhat the same(when accounting for the depression and changes in population, increase in custodial fathers) as before all these compulsorily law's where put into place to nab all those "deadbeats".


Well I guess somebody thought that they might as well be nabbed, since they weren't doing much anyways, and the rest well once they figured out you can make more money from it then it was history.




We can argue semantics and morality all you want, but the cold truth is that if these policies continue the future will be a very bleak place, if there is a future at all. Guy's like you(White Knights who think men should fall on their swords for women at the whim of women) are becoming fewer and fewer.


Is that what were arguing about semantics and morality? I didn't know. And yes your right the future has a great possibility of being a very different place the it is now, way, way, more so then the world of 40 years ago is compared to today. And I had no idea I was a white knight, what makes you say that? I like women, just you know.... not as much as those people who like women so much they get with any they come across, and definitely wouldn't even fall on any sword for any whims of any woman. I had no idea white knights existed, I thought that was a myth, like you know the easter bunny, and chivalry.



Manginas are very few and a mostly suicidal bunch. While on the other hand the number of guy's who are waking up to everything is increasing by the day. Then again if I misjudged you and your a nihilist, then any further debate would be pointless as the end results of the current policies would be acceptable.


Were do you get all these words from, "manginas". Are they the same dudes who try to get in females pants by playing to there tune? or is that another word for whipped?. Or is that the males that actually believe that females are as they say they are? Its really confusing, what that word means. And whatever you can judge me is good enough, because anything that you can think to judge me as, is a wrong and any other thing that you could think of. I suppose I can be a nihilist, as soon as I remember what that is about, ill have to look it up.



Because if the SHTF and America has to use the draft or be destroyed, and with a growing number of males who know they are being discriminated against and enslaved + the prideful defiance of youth(combined with anti-male discrimination in education, employment, healthcare and other areas of life), there is no way the West, let alone America could field large enough armies to defend themselves in the advent of an all out war.


Fear not for we can always send the women.
But in either case don't you know all war is deception, and if there was actually a big war, well then there aren't any number of humans living on this planet that a couple of presses of buttons cant have them all nuked to kingdom come. Large masses of army's, really translates to large and very organised targets that are easily wiped out if it came to all out war. It would be like in ww1 when they invented the machine gun, and they you had the other side were hundreds of soldiers were all lining up in nice little lines all ready and looking pretty, to be cut down by 2 guys operating the gun.



Why do you think Congress is trying to green light putting women on front line infantry? Because many of them know in the advent of another engagement they will have to rely on women for front line infantry.


And what are you against women having a fair change of being shot at like men are. Thats discrimination, I think we all deserve the change to be shot at if we want it.



Then their is the risk of Sharia law and islamification of America. Look at all the African American male converts to Islam. They where the first and hardest group to be hit by all this garbage. So it is only a matter of time until we start to see other groups of American males convert to either Islam or equally insane cult groups or fatalistic hate groups.


Good point, it's usually the most craziest of things that attracts the most people, and that whole sharia law thing sounds about as crazy as all the other things, all they would need is some money and position and then the people would flock to it male and female.



Nothing good comes from slavery; and the only lesson pain teaches is the lesson of hatred. A lesson were nothing is truly learned and everything is lost.

And yet that still does not solve how we stop people from having kids and leaving them all over the place, or the whole failed marriage thing and infighting that results in the world of divorce as you see it today. So you are mistaken pain will come, because of the actions and deeds that people do. And the system is not your friend or your enemy it's just a third entity in this mess that we all create, sometimes for good sometimes for bad.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 


Simple. Look up how the divorce rate went down when shared parenthood laws where enacted in a few States. It would be a similar but much larger effect if compulsorily child support and alimony was ended. Basic economics, remove the economic incentive and people will be more willing to try and work things out.

As per births outside of marriage, it might lower them a little in the lower socioeconomic bracket(or have no effect at all as most people in that bracket are too poor to care one way or another, as most dead beats are dirt poor), but the higher up the socioeconomic ladder the more pronounced the effect.

It could also end the whole bad boy garbage and also keep certain interests from stopping the male birth control pill.

It might lead to a boom for the pharmaceutical industry in regards to birth control both male and female, and in the advent of divorce it would make the custodial parent all the more reasonable towards the non-custodial parent(in some cases after the custodial parent alienates the children from the non-custodial parent, the non-custodial parent will just give up in despair, sometimes turning to addiction while a lot of the times committing suicide).

Your very argument is "without forced child support and/or alimony more kid's will pop out to be left for themselves and it will cost more in taxation aka welfare" is counter productive. Since women know they can get money by getting pregnant by a guy with some money they are more inclined to turkey baste or unilaterally decide to stop taking her birth control without mentioning it to her significant other.

While if she knew she wouldn't get any support without continuous consent she would be more willing and insistent on waiting for marriage and far more careful so as to not bear the financial burden alone.

By forcing all liability on the party with the least amount of rights and choice in the matter you are only supporting and expanding upon what you will fear will happen if the Constitution is properly enforced.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 


All sounds good in theory but like all things it would be a whole different thing in practice.



Your very argument is "without forced child support and/or alimony more kid's will pop out to be left for themselves and it will cost more in taxation aka welfare" is counter productive. Since women know they can get money by getting pregnant by a guy with some money they are more inclined to turkey baste or unilaterally decide to stop taking her birth control without mentioning it to her significant other.


That was not my argument, my argument was that the fact that it does happen you cant assume that it wont happen, if your more lenient on it, or if your not wont matter all that much. I'm saying is that it will happen either way, it's more to do with biology then anything else really.

But yes your right that whole females getting pregnant for the money part has to be diminished, it has lead to a whole industry really, were it feeds on the ignorance of men and the fact that females cant control there biological impulses nor do they know how to express those impulses other then, what you see, and are to emotional and the judges and lawyers know this. I'm afraid only if your Donald Trump can you afford to deal with all that. Now if he could only aford to deal with having a couple more wives then the average guy would not have to deal with a couple more females.
But this aint the middle east or the down south, so cant do that.




While if she knew she wouldn't get any support without continuous consent she would be more willing and insistent on waiting for marriage and far more careful so as to not bear the financial burden alone.

Um once again easier said then done, you factor in biology, the whole recession thing, and just the different types that wont make a great match at all, then well you have what you see today. So really what you see is what is possible. In fact you would have both to really blame for such things, a male who did not think it through and a female who just took advantage of that. So really this is a personal problem that express itself at a higher rate, because of all those factors like biology and recession and just need and wants.



By forcing all liability on the party with the least amount of rights and choice in the matter you are only supporting and expanding upon what you will fear will happen if the Constitution is properly enforced.

There you go again "forcing" no one is dragging people by there hair at shotgun point to do the things that they do. I'ts more like enforcing so if they do it, then yes it becomes a problem that has to be enforced, because lets be honest if it happens then that by default means that none of the party involved wanted to take responsibility, hence there current predicament.

So the only real solution is to try to limit this to a smaller ratio of happening, and what better way to do that then the current system of bias, and it would have to be against men, because well have your really talked to a female ever, there not on the logical side or the most reasonable, or capable to think outside there own needs and wants. And not to mention all the other facts that they are not capable of grasping. So learn to avoid it and watch out for it is the best course, that I see. Really if they could of paid on equal footing or have been on equal terms, then most likely this whole problem would not have happened.





top topics
 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join