Is this hypocritical?

[KevinKohler]

Well then if society isnt about fairness, what is the issue here regarding non-custodial parents paying child support?

You cant force a decision on women...as you agreed. Not fair, but reality.

But you also cant just throw fairness out the window if it's relative. Taxpayers/society should not be held responsible for something that the responsible party can be held responsible for. Or should we just do that for everything? Just go totally socialist?

Consent.


Consent.


Consent.



Society CONSENTS to should that burden, an individual does not.


Again, as mentioned before, this will actually help us all. By taking away a woman's option to FORCE another to pay for a decision she, and she alone has, it will affect her decision making process. She might just DECIDE, upon realizing she can't force her baby daddy into servitude for 18 years, to NOT go through with the pregnancy. Which will likely (almost assuredly) result in less money needed to fund our welfare situation. In fact, there would be such a financial windfall from this, that the state could afford to offer those abortions to women for FREE, and STILL lower the tax burden on us CONSENTING tax paying citizens.

 

[KevinKohler]

Lursa;1065067962]Soldiers consent to obeying orders and know they have no choices.

Soldiers consent to obeying LAWFUL orders, and not only do they have a choice, they are legally COMPELLED to disobey an unlawful order. Oddly enough, you seem to have forgotten to address the other "guilty" party in the commitment of war crimes...the people who make the weapons that enable such things to happen in the first place. They are, indeed participants, are they not? If people refused to help build guns, there would be no guns. Just as if men refused to have sex, there would be no unwanted pregnancies. I'll assume to ignored, or chose to not respond to this line of reasoning, because it's damaging to your case.

And realtors have nothing to do with financing homes. Mort lenders do and that responsibility has been examined in the courts and they may indeed have some responsibilities.

They participate in home buying. Just as men participate in baby making. You should apply your logic a bit more evenly.

My point is not flawed at all.

It's only flawless if you approve of slavery.

 

[Lursa]

But they ARE responsible for the well being of the society they live in, which is why we VOTE to have such systems in place. It is, in other words, a burden we willingly bear.

Sure, and the state is responsible to the taxpayers to protect our interests (after the child's). Added tax burdens are not helping society.

 

[KevinKohler]

Sure, and the state is responsible to the taxpayers to protect our interests (after the child's). Added tax burdens are not helping society.

Nor is forcing a man into involuntary servitude.



Some things are more important than money.

 

[Lursa]

I am suggesting no such thing, I am suggesting that tax payers, IE, government, should have a decent say on standard of living and lifestyle of those who are reliant on it to survive.

There IS a responsible party, by the way. Not just a responsible party...THE responsible party...the mother.

They do and they are trying to ensure that by compelling child support of non-custodial parents.

And since the man contributed 50% of the DNA, are you suggesting he isnt responsible, and esp. more responsible than taxpayers.

 

[KevinKohler]

They do and they are trying to ensure that by compelling child support of non-custodial parents.

And since the man contributed 50% of the DNA, are you suggesting he isnt responsible, and esp. more responsible than taxpayers.

The mother made 100% of the choice that resulted in a child.

The father made 50% of a choice that had a POTENTIAL to result in a child, even WITHOUT considering abortion an option.

Don't have a child if you can't afford one.



Very simple.

 

[Lursa]

Nor is forcing a man into involuntary servitude.



Some things are more important than money.

It applies equally to women so either both may be or neither are.

And it's my tax money and maybe it WILL encourage more responsibility in men and women if they have to pay $$ for the consequences of their actions. Certainly they should not be rewarded by others paying for their responsibilities

 

[Lursa]

The mother made 100% of the choice that resulted in a child.

The father made 50% of a choice that had a POTENTIAL to result in a child, even WITHOUT considering abortion an option.

Don't have a child if you can't afford one.



Very simple.

Good, and he's only going to have to pay 50% of what it takes to care for the kid...if he's non-custodial.

Very simple indeed.

Again, this is all academic since you have no power to force a choice on the woman and the state will not allow the child to suffer. And it's also going to protect the taxpayers.

it's 2 separate issues, which many here seem to willfully ignore in order to vent their outrage. You have no solution that I've seen. You claim it's unfair but refuse to recognize the unfairness to the taxpayers. That's the real hypocrisy in this thread on hypocrisy.

 

[KevinKohler]

It applies equally to women so either both may be or neither are.

And it's my tax money and maybe it WILL encourage more responsibility in men and women if they have to pay $$ for the consequences of their actions. Certainly they should not be rewarded by others paying for their responsibilities

It's not your tax money. It's OUR tax money.


I would hardly consider living on public assistance a reward for carrying a child to term. In all likely hood, removing the option to force a man to give her money for having a child....will result in far fewer children being brought into the world this way, and for this reason.

That's called win/win.

 

[Lursa]

Society CONSENTS to should that burden, an individual does not.
.

On this issue? Where? Apparently it does not, as the state is speaking for society.

 

[Lursa]

It's not your tax money. It's OUR tax money.


I would hardly consider living on public assistance a reward for carrying a child to term. In all likely hood, removing the option to force a man to give her money for having a child....will result in far fewer children being brought into the world this way, and for this reason.

That's called win/win.

Really? How's that working out so far? Because that's the current state of welfare, child support or not.

LOL boy, that was one BS answer.

 

[Lursa]

The solution is quite simple....don't do something you can't afford to do. Pregnant and poor? Get an abortion.

Cool. How is the state compelling that?

Just like I asked Smoke and Mirror.....

If the state cant compel it, it's not a solution. Anything else?

 

[KevinKohler]

Good, and he's only going to have to pay 50% of what it takes to care for the kid...if he's non-custodial.

Very simple indeed.

You know, you and I have participated in this debate....TOGETHER.


Without YOU, many of the things I typed never would have been typed. You could say, for the posts that are directly aimed at each other, we are each 50% responsible for what is posted, yes?

And yet, for some strange, inexplicable reason, if I violate the forum rules, only I will receive and infraction. I wonder why that is? Could it be...because...despite the two us participating in this thing together, only I retain the CHOICE to hit enter and post and bring forth into the world the things that I have typed? And so they acknowledge that only I am responsible, even though YOU helped bring these posts about?


I think I'm going to present your argument to the admin, and see if I can't maybe get the rule changed...this way, if I post something that violates the rules while directly responding to YOU, I can get YOU infracted as well. Perfectly logical, really, since if YOU simply stopped typing, or never signed on at all, this debate would not have happened, and I would not have felt compelled to hit enter, and bring anything forth to begin with.

 

[Lursa]

Because tax payers CHOOSE to shoulder that burden. We all CHOOSE, and reap the enormous benefits, of living in a modern society. We accept the costs of doing so. That is NOT slavery. It would be slavery if, when someone wanted out of the deal, and wanted to go outside of society, we did not let them. THEN it's a comparable scenario.

Then how is it an unacceptable burden for the non-custodial parent to pay it? Taxpayers cant opt out. Why can that parent? He or she must accept the costs of their actions, intentional or not. Taxpayers dont 'intend' to pay for kids if their parents are available to do so, at least in part.

 

[KevinKohler]

On this issue? Where? Apparently it does not, as the state is speaking for society.

And who is the state? Are they....possibly...a group of elected and appointed individuals?

 

[Lursa]

You know, you and I have participated in this debate....TOGETHER.


Without YOU, many of the things I typed never would have been typed. You could say, for the posts that are directly aimed at each other, we are each 50% responsible for what is posted, yes?

And yet, for some strange, inexplicable reason, if I violate the forum rules, only I will receive and infraction. I wonder why that is? Could it be...because...despite the two us participating in this thing together, only I retain the CHOICE to hit enter and post and bring forth into the world the things that I have typed? And so they acknowledge that only I am responsible, even though YOU helped bring these posts about?


I think I'm going to present your argument to the admin, and see if I can't maybe get the rule changed...this way, if I post something that violates the rules while directly responding to YOU, I can get YOU infracted as well. Perfectly logical, really, since if YOU simply stopped typing, or never signed on at all, this debate would not have happened, and I would not have felt compelled to hit enter, and bring anything forth to begin with.

Somebody sounds upset. Anything else relevant to the discussion?

 

[Lursa]

And who is the state? Are they....possibly...a group of elected and appointed individuals?

And lawmakers

 

[KevinKohler]

Really? How's that working out so far? Because that's the current state of welfare, child support or not.

LOL boy, that was one BS answer.

You, uh.....don't pay much attention to pop culture, and haven't for the...last.... 20 years or so, have you?


Child support represents a significant portion of a great many baby mamma's spending money. Remove it, and you change the dynamic in which these people make the decisions that they make.

 

[Lursa]

Last I checked, baby daddies don't get a cut of their own child support check. That all goes to the mamma.

Not if the daddy is the custodial parent. Then the check is issued to them.

Wow, you are really getting lost here, I find it hard to imagine you didnt know this.

 

[KevinKohler]

Cool. How is the state compelling that?

Just like I asked Smoke and Mirror.....

If the state cant compel it, it's not a solution. Anything else?

By having more control over the lifestyle and standard of living for those on public support. Which, to some degree, we DO have, with almost all public assistance. But we have NO say on what a woman spends her child support check on, do we?

But let's not pretend this is about the children...because if you REALLY cared about them, you wouldn't be so keen to attach dollars to them like you are.

 

[Lursa]

Soldiers consent to obeying LAWFUL orders, and not only do they have a choice, they are legally COMPELLED to disobey an unlawful order. Oddly enough, you seem to have forgotten to address the other "guilty" party in the commitment of war crimes...the people who make the weapons that enable such things to happen in the first place. They are, indeed participants, are they not? If people refused to help build guns, there would be no guns. Just as if men refused to have sex, there would be no unwanted pregnancies. I'll assume to ignored, or chose to not respond to this line of reasoning, because it's damaging to your case.
They participate in home buying. Just as men participate in baby making. You should apply your logic a bit more evenly.


It's only flawless if you approve of slavery.

What a bunch of desperate gobbledy gook. Good luck to those soldiers that disobey lawful orders. Child support is a lawful court ordered payment, so that doesnt even work for you.

According to your "analogies" people shouldnt be held accountable for anything they participated in if they dont want to be. That's all your 'analogies' add up to.

 

[KevinKohler]

Then how is it an unacceptable burden for the non-custodial parent to pay it? Taxpayers cant opt out. Why can that parent? He or she must accept the costs of their actions, intentional or not. Taxpayers dont 'intend' to pay for kids if their parents are available to do so, at least in part.

Tax payers CAN opt out, they can leave society. Reap the rewards, pay the price.

Just like people should be held to paying the price of their CHOICES. Like to have a child or not.

 

[KevinKohler]

Somebody sounds upset. Anything else relevant to the discussion?

Somebody sounds like they have no rebuttal.

 

[Lursa]

By having more control over the lifestyle and standard of living for those on public support. Which, to some degree, we DO have, with almost all public assistance. But we have NO say on what a woman spends her child support check on, do we?

But let's not pretend this is about the children...because if you REALLY cared about them, you wouldn't be so keen to attach dollars to them like you are.

Exactly what control over a lifestyle and standard of living? Please be specific? And also please remember that it all applies to custodial and non-custodial parents, not 'men or women.'

And I do care about kids and there are TONS in need. For every non-custodial parent that pays up, there is more to go to children and their programs that have no parent(s).

Boo hoo hoo, it's you that sounds like you care more about non-custodial parents than kids.

 

[KevinKohler]

Not if the daddy is the custodial parent. Then the check is issued to them.

Wow, you are really getting lost here, I find it hard to imagine you didnt know this.

This is an incredibly ironic thing say, lol. Sadly, I doubt you'll see it.

The daddy doesn't get that child support if the woman chooses to abort. See how it's the only choice that matters?