Girls less likely to use protection = Boy still to blame

Remove all ads!

Hiis intelligence is not the issue and that hardly matters within the context of my post.

Dude, I fail to see what any of your rant, especially this, has to do with his bigoted comments. There have been lots of bigots throughout history who have average or above average intelligence. So what? Nor does that change the law in regards to the age of consent, or parents defending their kids from sexual predators. Epic fail in your comments regarding my post, Rahkir.

 

Since you call into question the matter of mordea's intelligence...

I was assuming Silvery was talking about Mordea.

I said that Mordea isn't stupid just because he has a different point of view and there is no need to throw unnecessary insults at every other post of his. This is what I said to Silvery, and this is why you called me ignorant and anti-woman. I don't know what you read from my post, but what you originally responded to was supposed to mean: I know you dislike Mordea, Silvery, and that is fine. It is simply unnecessary to stoop to his level and insult him. However, if you respond to his argument in a well thought out way in which you disagree with him, I don't care. (He also seems to be intelligent, even if he has opinions that I disagree with.)

I am not defending him or his opinions, I'm saying there's no need to stoop to his level and that he has the right to his opinion. I definitely didn't agree with what he was saying. As for the intelligence, I already covered that... Silvery called mordea low-intelligence, I said he seemed intelligent, you said I was a woman-hater. I have absolutely no problem with mordea's views being challenged or removed if they're unnecessarily hurtful (this is different from pure opinion imo; if you direct it at someone in specific and insult or attack them).


Geesh, I've been getting a lot of flak lately. I never knew I hated women and overweight people so much.

 

You said:

But I said:

I can't find where I said that and I don't feel I did, only that you were lecturing Sil for fighting back. Which I thought was bull.

Dude, you must have had more beers than I've had....

 

I'm completely sober, I assure you.

You said "Hiis intelligence is not the issue and that hardly matters within the context of my post." Does that not call into question the matter of his intelligence?

I don't know why you think I was lecturing Silvery. I was merely intending to offer friendly advice, and as I stated earlier, I wouldn't have brought it up again if you didn't call into question my intent. To Silvery, I apologize if you were offended by my comment, I meant no harm.

Maybe your drunken state is putting some confusion between us.
Cheers Chandos, I wish you happiness and peace of mind!

 

I only thought that was just a sidebar that you and Sil were having.

Sir, I'm not "drunk." I can hold my beers, I assure you. Now, if I had bottle of good rum....

Peace, Rahkir. You're a good guy. My apologies for any misunderstandings.

 

I guess it's time for a group hug....

... not that close.

 

Right lads, keep me out of it! I was just screwing about and Rahkir's right, I shouldn't have had a pop at him on here. On the other hand though, he wasn't that intelligent as most of his evidence came from obscure publications that were rather one sided (or so it seemed to me) and, failing that, he leapt back to 'I'm right because I say so and if you disagree you're sexist towards men'.
Now, leave it alone and start talking about teenagers having sex will you?!?

 

I believe we were talking about a girl and her boyfriend. While yes, statutory rape charges may come into play, that doesn't change any of the mechanics of the encounter. It only adds another potential consequence.

Here's the problem with that: it's always perfectly clear who the mother is. It's not always perfectly clear who the father is. I find it a reasonable adaptation that men have no say in the course of the pregnancy. However, after that point, I agree with you entirely. If the mother wants to keep the child, and the father doesn't want to support it, he shouldn't have to. The mother is making a choice. There are other options (such as adoption). Likewise, the father should have some say in the fate of the child if he wants. If the mother doesn't want the child, the father should recieve all rights to it.

 

If only all things in life were as black and white as human emotion

 

Only after the child is born, NOG. Men do get somewhat shafted in the overall scheme of things. The father has no right to force the woman to carry the child to term -- if he wants the baby but she does not ... well ... too bad. If she wants the baby and he does not ... then he pays child support for 18+ years.

Child support in cases where the man doesn't want the child may not seem fair. Many men want nothing to do with their children after a divorce, they abandon the ex and kids. The children need to be protected and child support for one night stands is a logical extension -- and the right thing to do.

 

You can believe that if you want.

The problem is that's it's a broad generalization that doesn't apply to many families anyway.

 

Chandos: According to Men's Health it occurs in slightly more than 1 in 25 families. That's really quite a lot when you consider how many families there are in the US (where the "assumed" biological father is still living in the house). It's called parental or paternity fraud.

 

Actually, since the topic deals with a girl having sex for the first time, it should be perfectly clear who the father is.

 

Aldeth - Good point.

That's 4 percent. That means that 96 percent of families don't have that probleim (I know you are good at math, T2, but I wanted to emphasize my point).

 

I tried to post, but somehow fouled up -- in response to T2:

The current system of all rights go the girl, and the boy gets shafted, in this day and age such inequalities ought not to be allowed. Justice, fairness, decency, and the idea that women are just as capable of making decisions and taking the consequences for them all demand this.

 

Well then let's actually do the math....

In 2006 there 58,179,000 married couple families in the US (according to the US Census Bureau). Let's say, for argument's sake, about one-third of these families involves a step-father who has no biological child in the relationship -- that means there 1,551,000 men raising children fraudulently identified as their own biological child. You said:

Our relative view of "not that many" is off by over a million.

LKD: I disagree, in this day and age justice, fairness, and decency requires we safeguard children. Unfortunately, that only applies to children and not a fetus. Due to our Judo-Christian roots a child is not considered alive until it breaths its first breath and, therefore, has no rights until it breaths its first breath. We were both taught the same thing -- the spirit or soul of the child does not enter the child until birth. We cruelly do not consider a stillborn child as ever having been alive, even though the mother could feel it moving for months.

 

The Greeks didn't consider a person to be alive until it started talking (i.e. proved that it had a "soul") and had no problem committing infanticide before that. Something to think about.

 

We were talking about shooting up the boys your daughter brings home. So yes, I believe we were talking about boyfriends. Unless you intend to shoot up their playmates when they're 5 years old, in which case I think you're being a bit over-protective.

No, it's not. Locking the man into child support for about two decades is just as much forced servitude as forcing the woman to carry the child to term, only without such a noble goal as preserving human life. Remember, no one is saying the mother has to raise the child. In the current system, the women get all the choices and the men bear many of the consequences, without any voice other than a right to sue for custody if both parents want the child. On the other hand, the mother can drop out of the mother role any time she wants.

Actually, that's our helenistic roots, not our judeo-christian roots. The Jews consider (or at least did in the OT) a child to be alive as soon as the mother is identifiably pregnant. Specifically, according to OT law, if someone injures a pregnant woman so that the child dies, they are treated as if they had killed a human being, even if the woman survives. Similarly, if the child is born with deformaties as a result (I guess limbs can break and heal badly in the womb just like outside), the injurer is treated as if they had permanently injured a human being. Both conditions are subject to the injurer's intent in determining severity, just like they are for injuring or killing any other person.

 

Having been one of those children whose father abandoned at a very young age and then refused to pay child support, I find your stance very ... poorly thought out. The consequences of neglect and poverty are quite dire for our children.

 

I don't know what you are talking about. I know you have a pretty active imagination. I never said anything about "shooting up guys my daughters bring home." I was referring to those who don't get it that my girls are under-aged, and that would mean legally, rape. I commented that I have the right to defend my girls against anyone who would "attack them." Sorry, that I was not graphic enough in my descriptions for you, and that I tried to be a bit more delicate in speaking of girls who not at the age of consent. I guess you were disappointed. Don't worry, you can always go back to Mordea's posts.

[snip. A matter for PM ] - Beren