Child Support

[Thumper]

Thanks. Bodh will be your BFF for supporting his position, which after 45 years of arguments in the judicial world have led to nowhere. Apparently that 50 times of posting an equality solution isn't so hot after all?

I am disappointed that you had to refer to someone else's so-called equality solution rather than posting your own original solution.

What makes you think I am only mirroring what he has to say? Could it not be that I had these same beliefs before coming into this thread?

 

[Removable Mind]

What makes you think I am only mirroring what he has to say? Could it not be that I had these same beliefs before coming into this thread?

I simply ask you to post how you believe an equality solution could be created without legal or Constitutional conflicts.

That's it. No more. No less. I'm truly interested in something fresh, new, and actually might have merit.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Your argument about our property is to check with the government that allows essentially illegal asset forfeiture?

WRONG INTERPRETATION. Do you think the government works for free, any more than the average person works for free? By agreeing to remain a citizen of the country, one must recognize and accept that government services must be paid for. You even have a voice, through Representatives and Senators, in deciding what things the government would do, which must be paid for. If there is ANY single thing you want the government to do for you (or even for lots of folks, like, say, enforcing safety standards for automobiles), then you should be as willing to pay for that thing just as much as you might be willing to pay a plumber to fix a broken pipe. Your taxes are thus your share of doing that "paying for".

 

[Bodi]

Sorry, Bod. That make for great legal fairytale, but that argument wouldn't get you past a County Justice of the Peace. And it's so antiquated. Wonder how many times dozens of attorneys for men's rights groups have pleaded that very argument (over the course of many years), which left dead, silent stares into space coming from the judges' bench?

So it must be that making the same old useless argument over and over again - should be a clue that your equality solution isn't hitting non-fallacy zone.

Right. So a sexist system rejects a logical equality based solution. Great counter argument R.M. :lol:

Now, I asked what is fallacious about my proposal... not who may have presented it or who dismissed it.

 

[Bodi]

I simply ask you to post how you believe an equality solution could be created without legal or Constitutional conflicts.

That's it. No more. No less. I'm truly interested in something fresh, new, and actually might have merit.

You make Straw Man and Appeal to Tradition arguments... nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Bodi]

WRONG INTERPRETATION. Do you think the government works for free, any more than the average person works for free? By agreeing to remain a citizen of the country, one must recognize and accept that government services must be paid for. You even have a voice, through Representatives and Senators, in deciding what things the government would do, which must be paid for. If there is ANY single thing you want the government to do for you (or even for lots of folks, like, say, enforcing safety standards for automobiles), then you should be as willing to pay for that thing just as much as you might be willing to pay a plumber to fix a broken pipe. Your taxes are thus your share of doing that "paying for".

You are getting so far off track it is amazing... my money is my property. Government steals people's property and calls it legal. I pointed out an aspect of legal theft. That doesn't mean it should be legal or that it is morally right... just that the government has an army of people with guns and attack helicopters so I don't have much of a chance standing up to them.

 

[Bodi]

What makes you think I am only mirroring what he has to say? Could it not be that I had these same beliefs before coming into this thread?

I simply ask you to post how you believe an equality solution could be created without legal or Constitutional conflicts.

That's it. No more. No less. I'm truly interested in something fresh, new, and actually might have merit.

What he is saying Thumper is that if you agree with me you have nothing of merit because what I have to say is different than the current system. I want change but since change is different than the current system any change will be wrong, because it is different than the current system. The current system is the ONLY system of merit. Heck, all you will get from judges are dead, silent stares off into space if you present something different to them... it is so antiquated ...

 

[ludin]

Biology says that what people consent to is their decision to make. :shrug:

Glad you agree that you consent to pregnancy it is about time you got it right.

Nope. He is leaving it up to the mother. It's amazing that you don't get this.

That mother in turns burdens us because of him. We know it amazing that you don't get it.

The man isn't forcing the governments hand. lol. The government makes their own damn mind up to act. Your idea that some citizen can force the government to act shows you have no understanding of the power dynamics of the situation.

Yes we are aware you have no clue or understanding of this topic you prove it every time you post.

Whatever you say. :lol:

Yep pretty much correct you are finally getting somewhere.

 

[ludin]

Post conception... POST - CONCEPTION... or do you need to attend another one of Henrin's Biology 101 classes?

He like you do not understand biology either. Post conception is a direct result of sex.
What part of this do you not understand? By having sex with someone both parties agree to
All risks and consent to all risks involved in the act.

Sorry you don't like it I highly suggest taking a biology 101 class if you have not figured out
How kids come into this world.

 

[ecofarm]

It's cringingly obvious why some people are all "child support is BS!". I mean, come on, people, figure it out.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Sigh. Do you at least admit that the property is coming from the man?

THAT WASN'T THE POINT; the point was "control of property". The necessity of taxes (see #703) means that a man doesn't have full control over his income.

I did and it didn't help.

PERHAPS YOU SHOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT YOU CLAIMED DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. Even when men do pay child-support for offspring, they pay far less than what the woman "pays". Logically, most such men should be paying even more.

I wasn't talking about when it left the body.

OKAY; that was not clear in what you wrote.

Do you believe state interests trump rights? I don't.

KIND OF A LOADED QUESTION. There is actually only one genuine "right" in Nature, a "right to try". There is no such thing as a "right to succeed". All "human rights" exist ONLY because various humans claim them, and other humans let them get away with the claims (often because the others are themselves making the same claims). Sometimes a claimed "right" is disputed (think about the aristocrats killed because of their claimed rights, in the French Revolution). Thus: Are You Certain You Are Actually Talking About An Undisputed Right? (or "rights"?) Please be specific....

If the child is a gift from the mother to the father

THAT WASN'T THE ONLY FACTOR. Why are you now ignoring the other factor I described, similar to authorship?

then the father can reject it as freely as he would any other gift.

THIS GIFT IS DIFFERENT, in that all the rejection in the world doesn't change the biological connection between father and offspring. PLUS, newborn humans are declared to have rights! One of them, "right to life", means that support MUST be provided from somewhere.

Sure, he might have had a part in making that gift,

YES.

but if it is her gift to give

ONLY PARTLY TRUE; I MAY HAVE MISSPOKE SLIGHTLY, PREVIOUSLY. Her gift actually consists of choosing to carry a pregnancy to term. At birth it is Society that both declares the newborn to be (1) non-property (so cannot actually be owned/given), (2) a person with rights, and (3) the responsibility of both parents.

(I have to go deal with another commitment for a time, but I think I don't really need to say more in reply to your message)

 

[wolfman24]

I agree that if a man get married and has kids which is voluntary and then gets a divorce (no matter who is at fault) he should pay child support.

Now there are notable exceptions.

The woman is discovered using the money for personal items

The woman is or becomes an addict

The woman temporarily abandons the children and then returns.

 

[Henrin]

It's cringingly obvious why some people are all "child support is BS!". I mean, come on, people, figure it out.

Are you suggesting people don't want to support their children? You should be aware that I have always supported my children and never needed the state to tell me to do so. In fact, I have never been in front of the court on the matter since there was simply no need.

 

[ecofarm]

The woman is discovered using the money for personal items

The money goes into a budget. Assigning child support money to personal use is nonsense. As long as the child has the expected standard of living, it doesn't matter is she uses money designated child support for herself and her own money for the child, it all comes from the same pool of available resources. One would need to prove that no money, or at least not the amount provided, is being used for the child in total.

 

[ecofarm]

Are you suggesting people don't want to support their children? You should be aware that I have always supported my children and never needed the state to tell me to do so. In fact, I have never been in front of the court on the matter since there was simply no need.

I'll judge by your positions, not your personal claims.

 

[Henrin]

Glad you agree that you consent to pregnancy it is about time you got it right.

I did no such thing. I said that men and women consent to those things they decide to consent to. If the man doesn't agree with being a father then he quite obviously doesn't consent to it.

That mother in turns burdens us because of him. We know it amazing that you don't get it.

She burdens you because of her inability to afford the child on her own and her decision to go to the state for help. The man has nothing to do with any of that.

Yes we are aware you have no clue or understanding of this topic you prove it every time you post.

The only organization that has the domain of force is the state. No one can force the states hand on any matter at all.

 

[Henrin]

I'll judge by your positions, not your personal claims.

Because every woman that is pro-choice would have an abortion herself.

Oh wait...

 

[Henrin]

The money goes into a budget. Assigning child support money to personal use is nonsense. As long as the child has the expected standard of living, it doesn't matter is she uses money designated child support for herself and her own money for the child, it all comes from the same pool of available resources. One would need to prove that no money, or at least not the amount provided, is being used for the child in total.

Really? So according to you it doesn't matter if all the money goes to things for her? How nice.

 

[ecofarm]

Because every woman that is pro-choice would have an abortion herself.

Oh wait...

Ineffective deflection. Anyone who would trust your personal claims is a moron.

 

[Bodi]

He like you do not understand biology either. Post conception is a direct result of sex.
What part of this do you not understand? By having sex with someone both parties agree to
All risks and consent to all risks involved in the act.

Sorry you don't like it I highly suggest taking a biology 101 class if you have not figured out
How kids come into this world.

When did I say otherwise? I swear, you are becoming more and more irrelevant.

 

[Henrin]

Ineffective deflection. Anyone who would trust your personal claims is a moron.

I never lied about myself, but you're free to think what you want. I do believe my point is being made with the example I provided though. Supporting abortion being legal doesn't mean you will abort and being opposed to child support or wanting a legal opt-out doesn't mean you won't support your children. Thinking a persons political views are always about the persons own life speaks more about you then it does anyone else.

 

[Henrin]

Ineffective deflection. Anyone who would trust your personal claims is a moron.

Btw, the gender symbol under my name would be a personal claim of mine.

Just sayin'.

 

[Bodi]

I'll judge by your positions, not your personal claims.

So you can't differentiate an argument from a person's personal situation?

Like him, I have always paid MORE than the required child support. When this came up in Court the Judge commended me.

Everybody has the right to be a judgmental jerk if they like...

 

[ecofarm]

So you can't differentiate an argument from a person's personal situation?

Like him, I have always paid MORE than the required child support. When this came up in Court the Judge commended me.

Everybody has the right to be a judgmental jerk if they like...

Yeah, sure.

 

[Thumper]

WRONG INTERPRETATION. Do you think the government works for free, any more than the average person works for free? By agreeing to remain a citizen of the country, one must recognize and accept that government services must be paid for. You even have a voice, through Representatives and Senators, in deciding what things the government would do, which must be paid for. If there is ANY single thing you want the government to do for you (or even for lots of folks, like, say, enforcing safety standards for automobiles), then you should be as willing to pay for that thing just as much as you might be willing to pay a plumber to fix a broken pipe. Your taxes are thus your share of doing that "paying for".

You do realize that the founders hated the idea of direct taxation and up until the early 1900s Americans kept 100% of their income (other than a brief period during the Civil War). Despite this we still had roads, a military that won eight wars, police and fire departments, schools and other services.

Anyway about your other post. Ive already explained that.