online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 413 (view)
 
Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/25/2009 6:19:52 PM
Wow! I do agree with spagetti, as far as the debate issue. As far as the original question, well, why should pot smoking be any different than dating single parents, or men paying for dinner? Obviously, people feel the need to defend their position, on both sides of the argument, and one's position is based on personal experience. Unfortunately, rare is the case where a forum such as this provides enlightenment or education, as most are simply promoting an agenda, or two hard headed to put some thought into others' comments. Obstinance isn't a virtue, neither is compliance. But the ability to think for oneself, and perhaps play devil's advocate for a bit sure is!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 547 (view)
 
Why don't men date single mothers...the answer
Posted: 11/25/2009 5:58:13 PM
This topic really has a very simple answer, yet so many have chosen to take the low road and engage in judging others, without even knowing them.

Just because a man is willing to have a relationship with a single mom, doesn't mean he is strong. Exceptional, maybe, but that is not the measure of strength. Neither is it the measure of stupidity. It is all about the individual. Monkey, at least agree that it is YOUR reality, not reality for many. Onesay, to even hint that being a stay at home mom = "Sitting on your ass" is quite ignorant. There most certainly is a way (several, even) to state one's opinion or personal experience without judging all people who have ONE thing in common as being alike.

One day you'll all grow up, but in the meantime, the reasons men who don't date single mothers choose not to are varied and personal, as are the reasons men who do date single mothers choose to do so. Why is this such a big deal? I'm a single mom, and I certainly have no interest in persuading someone to date me who doesn't want to get involved with a single mom! Any more than I would want to persuade a man to date me who is uncomfortable with the fact that I may be taller then he. No one should have to defend their proclivities, any more than they should have to defend their parental status.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 1222 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 10:30:38 PM
Stop evading the question. He asked, would you support a ban on abortions?

Yes, or no. Answer the question.


Actually, I am not evading the question, I am doubtful that your comment is directly related. Roe v. Wade assumes that abortion is about the right to one's own body, and would not differ if every human being could bear a child. Roe v. Wade has little to do with the arguments presented here. This argument being carried out on this thread is based on the unfairness of BIOLOGY, not abortion rights. It is based on bitterness, monetary issues, control & vindictive natures played out against "opposing" genders, by those who either make poor choices, are easily duped or are simply irresponsible and misanthropic/misogynistic.

The question quoted is very personal, and I do not find the web a to be an appropriate place to share personal info. However, since I am not prone to avoidance, I will answer what I perceive to be your intended point. I believe that life begins at conception. I believe that both parties to the creation of life are responsible for that life. Believing thusly, I would not be upset by the overturning of Roe v. Wade. As I have stated, I believe that the onus is on the party who is most vehemently opposed to accepting that responsibility to prevent it from affecting them.

Roe v. Wade had absolutely nothing to do with the differences in the biology between the genders, and I will make it quite clear that those of you who may applaud my answer due to your assertion that "now, we are equal" sicken me. My personal beliefs have little to do with equality between the genders, nor do they speak to civil rights, except those of the yet to be born. Were we to repeal the Roe v. Wade decision, we would take away the "rights" of men involved in healthy relationships to the same extent as women. It is not comparable, although passing a law rendering males incapable of peeing against a tree while standing would be. Doing either would be fine with me, as it would not apply to me, and anyone with whom I would choose to lay would know that beforehand (major point, that: BEFOREHAND); in any case, I am "fixed" and past menopause, so it affects me not at all. I am also capable of accepting the consequences for my actions, so I have no strong feelings which would lead me to support either the ban on abortion or to fight for abortion "rights"; I do not believe it is my right to kill another human being, even if participation in the forums sometimes makes me want to do so. So, go ahead, repeal it.

Is that clear?

Now. will you ask all those who "fought" for "equality" to answer the same, as they will have no choice at all, no discussion between partners, no say in the matter? They will be forced to be responsible to prevent pregnancy, won't they, if it imperative to do so? That is the position I have taken all along, without having to get personal. Thank you.


btw, abortion of a child created as a result of rape or incest was legal prior to Roe v. Wade.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 1205 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 9:33:15 PM
Take away Roe v. Wade, my opinion does not change. The responsibility to NOT produce a child falls harder on the party for whom the responsibility OF a child is more objectionable.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 1203 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 9:22:38 PM

However, I have always taken personal accountability of my body as well, being that I am the one who would ultimately be the one risking becoming pregnant.


That is the nail on the head! If you are a woman unwilling to risk the chance of becoming pregnant, you are the one responsible to prevent it, or deal with the consequences. If you are a man, unwilling to rick the responsibility incurred from impregnating a woman, you are the one responsible to prevent it, or deal with the consequences.

It's not about fairness; life isn't fair. It's about priorities, and responsibility. They are different, for different folks. Get them straight!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 62 (view)
 
adjuvented or non-adjuvented
Posted: 11/20/2009 8:58:28 PM
One book shouldn't change anyone's mind.




If it documents in stunning detail information that directly conrtradicts what "everybody knows" and is done right and well, one book can do plenty to at least make you stop and question what you've been led to believe.

That's my point" ONE book doesn't do that; it requires further research. There is ONE book presenting contradictory evidence as well.



far less children are affected as a direct result of being inoculated than were affected by the disease.




Doesn't matter when that one kid is yours and his/her life is ruined. If I force my son to contract polio, do you think either he or I will care about statistics on how "safe" the shot was?


"The greater good"; there wouldn't be one kid left! Of course, I have always felt that one's own trials are the worst, as they are theirs alone, but that doesn't mean that saving horde of children from untimely death should be avoided in order in order to save a few, does it?


As for Tamiflu, it doesn't kill the virus, it merely prevents it from spreading to host cells, thereby reducing symptoms by about a day or so.

I did use the word "kill", so... interesting question, "are viruses alive"" that remains unanswered by science. To my understanding, viruses are not literally "alive", as they have no nucleus, but they do multiply. I guess one would have to change the scientific definition of life. Then again, life, to the parent of a child who is severely disabled, already has am altered definition; that "one kid" is theirs.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 301 (view)
 
Back to the topic...? :-)
Posted: 11/20/2009 8:49:02 PM

CSoul, if you use MSN or Yahoo to chat, both have games that you can play online with someone you are chatting with...I've played chess with rustic (remember him) who lives in Australia...of course he kicked my butt but still it was fu


You can shoot pool on Yahoo!!!

Debate is soooo much better than argument!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
 
anyone have an answer?
Posted: 11/20/2009 8:46:35 PM
How old is this child? Have you asked your parents how they prevented you from crying when you were a child? Do you work, and if so, who is responsible for your child while you are away from home?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 459 (view)
 
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 11/20/2009 8:34:46 PM
I can't figure out why some of you are jumping on "townie", for a quote taken out of context and not even attributable to her! She said:


I don't think it's confusing at all. It's supposed to be comparable to what the payor would have spent on the child if the family were still intact in order to minimize the effect the breakup would have on them. It takes into account the payor's income only, so that it's as even as possible.Obviously, it's not perfect; but I can't see any other system that would work that wouldn't cost more than it's worth to oversee.

The problem with going halves on anything is that there will always be people who will create a fuss and argue simply because they want to make things as hard as they possibly can for the ex and ignore the effects on the children. I've seen NCP's deny their children braces for severe overbites simply because the feel that their 140 dollars a month should cover half of everything a child needs. Or refuse to buy anything for them for Christmas or their birthday because they already get "enough". Or insist that 60 dollars per month is more than enough to cover a child's food and clothing.


She is quite right. It is not the system, it is the bitter & vindictive who are the real problem here. They exist as CP & NCPs alike, but they are still the problem. There are plenty of parents who willingly support their children outside of the CS system, sacrificing so their children don't have to, and collaborate in the best interest of the individual they created despite their inability to remain in a relationship with one another. The system assumes reasonableness, and is needed to enforce responsibility. That is a sad commentary on individuals, not the CS system.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 88 (view)
 
Men and self esteem
Posted: 11/20/2009 8:02:42 PM
Forgive me if I "wax philosophical", but self esteem is merely the worth places on oneself, isn't it? Everyone has to deal with self esteem issues. The commercial mentioned points to the fact that for the female gender, their view of self is based on outward appearance. I guess one could say that it is a bit different for men, and that males base their self worth on things like ability to provide and "strength". Assuming that is true, at least to some extent. two thingss become evident: we haven't really changed all that much (evidenced plenty on these forums!), and, interesting that we call is SELF esteem when the basios of our assessment of us seems to be based on others' vies of us. Women base their appearance on comparisons to images projected by the media, rather than from within, or even from those whom they seek to attract. Men base their self worth on how worthy they are to the women they seek out.
Perhaps that's why we all ended up HERE.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Whats wrong with people
Posted: 11/19/2009 8:25:21 PM

My question is this, is it possible to ever stop loving someone, because I dont want to have any feelings for her but hatred, which I find hard to do.


It is possible to have never learned to love yourself. Hatred is not something for which to strive, if only due to it's close relationship to love, certainly in your case. Sometimes it helps to talk to someone, someone professional, to sort out your own emotions.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 91 (view)
 
The other side of WTF was he thinking?
Posted: 11/19/2009 8:17:13 PM
To newberrys:

This is exactly the sort of response I expected...reading comprehension is a WONDERFUL thing...and you know what they say happens when you a s s u m e?

She TOLD me, in an email that she was MAD at me for EXACTLY this reason...she said that it "hurt" her that I did not make a move. Duh. Sounds like she was not "not into me." Here is what also happens to men: we say things like my OP, and some woman comes along and skims it in a shuddering fury and then pounds off some vitriolic response like yours.


I feel the need to defend newberry a bit. It was not clear from your post that the woman said anything of the sort. I believe your words were "it seems ..." In any case, I sensed no virtiol in her response; no need to be so defensive.

Even comprehension is subjective. Simply read back the responses. Some feel this has to do with a grown woman not be able to express her desire for sex. I took it as a person who is either used to, or expecting to be approached for sex, outside of her want or desire for such. Either way, what's the difference? Only she knows her motivation.

To directly address the post, does any of this matter? You don't seem interested in her, and her issue is her own. People react & expect action according to personal experience, but as you don't find her to be your type, who cares?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 67 (view)
 
Complicated Girl Question
Posted: 11/19/2009 8:07:29 PM

By keeping you off-balance, she can have the upper hand!

I tend to agree.

Withdraw all contact except only respond to messages and calls she initiates. One reply per message. No multiple callbacks or texts per message. Make her chase you for a while. If she doesn't play ball, then her interest level is low and it's time to move on. Life's too short wasting it on women who have low interest in you. So you need to find out.


Oh, yes, that must be it! Let's all resort to assigning motivation to the actions of others! and play games! What a better way to achieve success on a dating site!

Why don't you discuss it with her?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 54 (view)
 
adjuvented or non-adjuvented
Posted: 11/19/2009 7:58:37 PM
Open heart, your absolute ability to THINK, look further into a particular matter, and admit to its' effect on you tells me , so I am surprised!


Read a book called Vaccinations Condemned, if you can find a copy. When you do, you will never "vaccinate" your children again and will begin to question how you got caught up in your erroneous, fear-based belief system.


One book shouldn't change anyone's mind. Surely the writer has an agenda, as do the drug companies... however, one needs only to look at the incidence of death from the diseases against which we vaccinate versus the harm done to those who are vaccinated as a result of that vaccination. It would seem to me that the only reason the minority of unvaccinated children seem unaffected is due to the fact that the majority are. The number of deaths from such diseases in countries where vaccines are unavailable, as compared to the number of deaths in countries where children are routinely vaccinated are evidence enough for me. I will say that I am very reluctant to subject my own children to "new" vaccines, and have not vaccinated them against the H1N1. Still, most vaccines have been around for many years, and far less children are affected as a direct result of being inoculated than were affected by the disease. My two cents.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 434 (view)
 
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 11/18/2009 11:15:21 PM

When I was going through court I was told that the child support is the one thing that can not be bargained with or away. From that stand point (going through court) I think it is somewhat forced by the system.


Perhaps, then, it depends on where you live. I receive CS directly from my ex, not through the CS unit. Unless I petition them to do so, they will not garnish his wages, and they will not issue me a check.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 283 (view)
 
Closed mind and religious brainwashing vs science
Posted: 11/18/2009 11:07:25 PM

Zero chance my son will ever get ANY "vaccination."
He's never been "vaccinated" against anything and is healthier than most any other kid I've ever met his age -- and much brighter than all the autistic kids whose entire lives were ruined by "vaccines" that actually caused their condition.
Different U.S. States have different laws on the forced poisoning children. I read of a story in Oregon where the police came in and oversaw a forced "vaccination." Fortunately, I did not have to use force to protect my son from such a violent, unConstitutional intrusion. Where my son was born, refusal to inject a bunch of toxic junk into a baby's bloodstream is optional. Here in Michigan, you can claim exemption for religious beliefs for sure, which we've done. He is healthier than all the plague-injected vaccine monkeys around him, by order of magnitude.


Followed by (forgive me, conscious...):

He is denying his own children the vaccines from rubella, smallpox, polio, measles and meningitis. This is why it's dangerous to live in bigotry and religious brainwashing. Never mind hundreds of years of history. Never mind that some heavy diseases, such as smallpox, are now nearly extinct thanks to vaccines :


He never said he was against vaccines for religious reasons, merely that he used religion as a legal "out" to avoid them. Neither zealots nor ignoramuses represent those who adhere to religion, for the most part.


If atheism can prevent that level of indoctrination and the destruction of critical thinking, then I sure see it as positive. (Not that every believer is that brainwashed, quite the contrary. Yet I don't know how "open" his heart supposedly is, but we can see how closed his mind really is. It's quite sad, especially for the children.


Common sense can prevent that level of the destruction of critical thought! Atheism, like strict adherence to any religion, should be a conscious decision, made at a point in life where one is capable of doing so. It is the indoctrination of the very young into a distinct lifestyle that makes that lifestyle dangerous. Allowing for the fact that we ALL become capable of critical thought (unless we are locked up in the home our entire lives) I believe that exposure to some form of community based religion can be healthy, to the extent that it provide a sense of community & responsibility, and fosters a sense of belonging as well as respect, both for self & for others. Atheism doesn't CAUSE critical thought; the lack of critical thought allows one to be swayed by a level of zealousness, of any kind.

Atheism is nothing more than a word to most, a word that is used to provide fodder against the most bigoted of those who practice religion. I am fairly certain that there are as many hypocrites who don't believe in God as there hypocrites who do. Critical thought does not prevent one from their beliefs; choosing to/not to believe in God for many is simply as a matter of having been taught either, or a matter of convenience. Neither makes one more "thoughtful" than another. In reality, however, many seek to lie their lives in such a manner that their belief in God prevents them from self entitlement, affords them the responsibility of treating others with respect, and most certainly doesn't prevent critical thought. It is not unlikely that they would do so even with religion, so long as they had guidance and education. There is simply no relation between the absence of critical thought & a belief in a higher power. There are plenty of "thinkers" who believe, or at least can not disprove, the existence of a higher power. There are plenty of people who practice "faith" in their daily lives, without becoming nonthinking , bible toting, zealous bigots. Responsibility for one's actions, conclusions, or inaction, for the majority, lies within the individual, not the belief or disbelief in God. It is only when you use your view of God to justify actions that you prove yourself incapable of thought.

Were one to adhere to the thread title, of course close minded & religious brainwashing is not preferable to science, but the subject itself is inflammatory. You can have religion & not be close minded, just as you can shun religion & be obtuse. Arguments are borne of emotion & personal experience and are intended to sway; they often attract the most close minded of us all. Discussion, for those in possession of a capable mind, is meant to promote thought.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 400 (view)
 
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 11/17/2009 9:16:25 PM
I am not speaking from any side, I am speaking to the topic at hand! CS payment amounts are based on tables which calculate the percentage of one's income that is attributable to their childrens expenses, period. I believe that the method of calculating amounts is fair, and that has nothing to do with anyone's particular situation.That is what I have stated, and will continue to state. I haven't spoken from my side about the unfairness of my particular situation, as far as it's relation to the CS system, and I won't as it is off topic. I am not disagreeing with your feelings, as the validity of one's feelings is never a question in my mind. I speak only to the imposition of one's feelings on a system that is in place to serve the majority in the most comprehensive & logical way.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 259 (view)
 
Homosexual Rights and Marriage Continued.....
Posted: 11/17/2009 8:56:31 PM
what is "left open heart"?!?!?!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 783 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 8:50:21 PM
What you don't understand is that a woman can tell a man whatever he wants to hear so that he won't choose to "take the chance" with another.
She can mislead him into thinking that they are agreed to terminate any unwanted pregnancies.
She can be a fraud.
And the law predetermines that a man is consenting, by having sex, that he is agreeable to being a legal parent, despite any verbal agreement and understanding between him and the woman.
She can be a fraud, and the law will not defend the man.
Unequal.
If you don't explain this to your son (should you have one) you might be the one who ends up with expense to you.

and...

Exactly. This thread is yet another instance when a woman feels entitled to be provided for.
It's always about money with these women.
Someone else's money. And how she can get rights to it.
I agree.
My mother warned me about these women


This thread is nothing of the sort! Many of us do understand, and understand that men can also be deceptive, but your arguments suggest that ALL women act thusly, and that is simply not the case; it is furthermore, the ultimate "strawman", as it implies deceptive BEHAVIOR. The fact that you suggest that women who choose not to abort or give up their parental rights do so solely to collect CS is not only a fallacy, it speaks to your own bitterness, nothing more. Mature responsible persons, of either gender, do not bring a child into the world, imposing great responsibility upon themselves, merely to collect a check. The logic behind the law that "forces" men to be held responsible is based on biology, the assumption of risk and the right to control one's own body, not contract law, you fool! Your logic, were it to be followed, would change the fact that it is solely women who can become pregnant, and is just as unchangeable.

I am left to wonder how you argue for the woman who is duped into believing by a man, that he will "care for her forever, and "not to worry", knowing that she doesn't believe in abortion, when she becomes pregnant? What would you suggest in that case? For those of us in possession of our faculties, "caveat emptor"; you live with your choices, no matter the point at which biology forces you to make them.

Methinks you're a mama's boy.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 397 (view)
 
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 11/17/2009 8:04:00 PM
That's not a joint decision. That is a unilateral decision. I am to buy clothes in my home, she buys the clothes in hers. I decide where I live, she decides where she lives. She buys food, I buy food.


I was talking about where the children reside. Admittedly, I am talking in generalaties, which is what CS is based upon.


t's a new perspective for you to consider.


I seek neither to ignore nor disagree with your perspective, only to address the topic at hand .

As for:

Is it starting to make sense how it is folly to believe the standard of living can be maintained in two separate homes?


It never didn't make sense to me, but you are talking about the standard of living of adults, while I am talking about that of the children of two parents who choose not to remain together. Raising children involves sacrifice, and my feeling is that the brunt of the sacrifice should be borne by the parents, BOTH parents. That means that, if you want to maintain a particular lifestyle for yourself, then work a second job, or a third, in the off time when you are not with your children, if need be. Adults set their own priorities. If a couple chooses to live in a home that they cannot afford to live in on one income, then both parents work. If they deem it in the best interest of their children to remain in that home when they part ways, then they have to work harder. I am not passing judgment, merely commenting on whom the greater sacrifice should fall.


However, that is no longer a decision I can make. I have to pay child support each and every month even if there is no immediate need for that money at that given time. These are the kinds of decisions I am talking about. It's not just about the children... life is still going on no matter how much the people who developed the child support laws think it suddenly stops on behalf of payors to ensure they can, without fail, pay a mandated amount each and every month.


Assuming one had a budget, there are funds budgeted for maintenance/car repair. In any case, I am not talking about squandering a ridiculous amount of money in any given time period. You have to feed your children every month whther your car breaks or not as well. CS is based on the percentage of income one expends on the care of their child each year, divided by either weeks or months per year. CS IS just about the children! It seems reasonable, in that it assumes that the parties involved are reasonable. There are opportunities to make changes on a case by case basis, but it is a general rule, nothing more. However would one expect that the courts could effectively, and efficiently, come up with CS amounts? They work with the general rule.

I am not defending "deadbeats", nor am I defending those who misuse their exes. No one is forced to collect CS payments through the system, nor are they forced to receive CS at all. CS is enforceable, not forced, by the system itself. If both parents are mature & caring enough to make decisions & provide for their children together, "official" CS payments aren't even necessary. I am only saying that they do seem reasonable, in general.

For the record, my own CS is based on my ex having cut his hours, voluntarily, to part time, and haven't increased in five years,although his contract guarantees yearly increases, so, before you jump on me, please know that my perspective is not skewed by personal experience. I firmly believe that when you remove emotion, the tables on which CS is based seem objective & workable.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 371 (view)
 
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 11/16/2009 9:19:10 PM
[What decisions? What decisions am I making together when my money is taken from me and I have no say in how it is allocated? How is that a unified decision? I'm all for equal sacrifice. Give me equal custody of my daughter, and then we'll figure out child support by combining our incomes and splitting the difference. Problem is, that's not what happened, nor is it typical that that happens.

The decision regarding where to live, for example, how much money is spent on clothing, etc. My situation is not typical of what happens, but that doesn't mean that CS tables, which are based on the typical, are unfair, only that my particular situation is. It doesn't change the fact that the children are the first priority. Adults who can not set aside their differences to provide for their children, monetarily or otherwise, don't affect the CS tables, and shouldn't adversely affect the children, at least in a financial sense.



Well, you could make the choice to prove that. Give up custody, pay support, and see if it feels like you really have all that much choice.


I'm not one for sharing personal info with complete strangers, but let's just that I often long for, say, one weekend a YEAR, to myself, although I love my kids dearly. As for support, I pay, each & every day, to support my kids, and do so willingly, as it is my responsibility. No need for personal attacks.


Well I must say, you must share with me the name of your previous employer. I would love to find someone who paid me more to not work than I make working.


Why the need to make this personal? I have tried to be objective about this issue. I was a stay at home mom, gave up a good job, retirement & health benefits, all a decision made by TWO people, in order to afford what I still feel was a better life for our children. I am not blaming anyone for that choice, I am simply stating the fact that my disposable income was far greater as such than it is in my present situation. It would not surprise me were you to come back with a rebuttal along the lines that it was my ex husbands income, but it was very much something we agreed on, and my contribution to our family was and remains appreciated by my older children, and sorely missed by my younger, who has missed out on a great deal as a result of my working out of the home.



Nor does my daughter. But she also wouldn't suffer if I was given the ability to make my own choices on how to allocate funds without being mandated to contribute a specific amount every month without fail


It seems you a caring & responsible parent. Why, then, the need to argue? Can you not make decisions regarding your daughter with your ex? Were you such a control freak when you were together that you alone decided how to allocate funds? If she is happy, and provided for, with love, necessities & at least some wants, why the need for vehement arguments? Is her mother not trustworthy with the money? Squanders, and neglects the child? If so, then do something about that; it certainly can be done, I know of more than a few who have taken action successfully. If, however, it is based on bitterness, suck it up & forget it. It is counterproductive.


Unfortunately bitterness is the foundation of child support. You're quite right... it is quite simple. I don't need these laws in place to do what I know is right. They're there for people who wouldn't do right, which is why I will never buy into all the fairy tales spun to window dress it's sole intent... to exact punitive measures.


I am sorry for you that you feel that way. If you would do the right thing regardless, why let it bother you? Why not advocate for those children who wouldn't otherwise be provided for? Truth be told, it also protects those who pay CS, who would otherwise be "taken", to follow the logic. Setting guidelines to mandate responsible parties isn't to punish, it's meant to enact fairness, financially. CS isn't personal, it's general. Only when you take it personally does it feel that way.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 679 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 8:48:16 PM
No.
Here's the truth.
Accidents do happen.
THEY have to be careful if they do not want to become single mothers.


Convenient the part that you left out! You have supported my argument; the onus is on the party who is more adamant about not wanting to deal with the consequences of unwanted pregnancy.

There will never be equality in the degree, or point, of choice, so long as there is not equality in the ability to bear children. This has nothing to do with stupid. To assume that any women with whom you lay will follow your beliefs & desire once you have impregnated her is foolish. To brand anyone who doesn't agree with you as illogical is pompous & immature.

Those lacking a higher degree of brain function are merely unfortunate; those choosing arrogance & foolish adherence to inane ramblings while judging all who don't defer are unworthy. Take your pick.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 367 (view)
 
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 11/16/2009 8:24:28 PM

Take away my money and you take away my right to make that choice. Would you like it if I took your money and made your decisions for you?


Of course not, but I would assume that the decisions that we made together for our child would remain equally as important to each of us, and that we would equally share in the sacrifice to make it so. Money does NOT equal choice. I have far less income since my divorce, and I didn't work! My children, however, don't suffer much at all financially. I spend every penny of CS on them, and much more, percentage wise, of my income on their support then does my ex, and I have no qualms about doing so. I signed on for sacrifice upon their conception. My responsibility, their right. Take the bitterness toward the ex out of the equation, and it really is quite simple.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 365 (view)
 
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 11/16/2009 8:18:15 PM

^^^^^^^ Your post is a good reason for a woman to marry.
And a good reason for a man not to.
So essentially what your saying is that in a marraige contract that even if it dissolves that men will still have to maintain the "lifestyle"?
That is not how contract law works because if it does work in that manner than no fault divorce should be abolished.
Becaue if the premise is to follow the contract then wouldn't we be also obligated to follow the vows and the promises we made in a public forum ie the chapel.
For a contract to be dissolved there has to be a reason other than I feel like divorcing you.
It's like shutting down the factory but still paying the employees.


I assume this was directed at me, although I directed my words at both men & women. It has little to do with marriage, other than the traditional. I believe that the traditional still exists, to a great extent, as much as many on the forums argue it, they choose to live it. Marriage or not, both parents are responsible to maintain a lifestyle THEY chose together for their child. If they were on welfare, I assume they continue to be so, and their child is not elevated by their separation, simply not harmed, financially, by either parent. I never said "men" would have to maintain the lifestyle; PARENTS do, as that is their responsibility! The parents, both men & women, most likely will be harmed (despite what some argue, that is not a direct reflection of child support, rather human nature, enough money to secure a good attorney & sheer stupidity, but in most cases simply a fallacy borne of bitterness with no basis in fact), but that is a consequence of supporting two households, and is as it should be, as far as I am concerned. I am not arguing the reasons why more women than men retain custody; that is for another forum, but it remains the fact. If that fact means that the check are written to the woman, so be it, but the percentage of one's income that is spent on their children remains the same.

True, many states have "no fault" divorce; not the one in which I reside, but that doesn't matter. Are you arguing, then, specific performance? To do so, you'd have to prove sufficient consideration, which I think most often would be impossible. This is not a gender based issue, even if one attempts to bring gender into it. It's about financial responsibility for one's offspring, even at the rick of financial hardship for oneself. That's called sacrifice, and it is inherent in parenting. Good & caring parents of both genders recognize this. I am happy to know far many more of these than I do the type who would deny their children the life previously afforded them; sadly, they are not well represented on these forums.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 224 (view)
 
Condoning Atheism.
Posted: 11/16/2009 7:55:50 PM
I love you, conscioussoul, and you know it, but the reason same sex marriage is not yet legal in most states IS because of money & politics, NOT the fundamentalists. This country is more liberal than ever, generally speaking.

Everyone argues based on feelings & personal experience, but laws are enacted to either produce income or save money. Our officials are elected, and one would do well to take a look at their historical economic behaviors prior to voting. Our president is a Keynesian, yet many who are disappointed with his intervention programs voted for him on the basis of his "youth" and Liberal" nature, all the while ignoring his economic stance. Long has there existed a political lobby advocating medical care for the elderly based on ability to pay, yet we complain about the inability of our seniors to care for their own medical needs given the current government structured intervention. One can say that they believe anything, but unless you support those who act in such a manner to actually pursue it, you are just as responsible for the failure to enact & support your beliefs. The inability to recognize that any change is money driven in a capitalistic society leads to that failure, and blaming it on religion, or anything else, is simply a copout, if you ask me. Zealots are not the majority, and they don't run the country, and the only religious group I know of that votes as a bloc is the Hasidom (yes, they are quite powerful within their influential areas). The truth is, neither conservatives nor liberals have their basis in religious beliefs, but rather the almighty dollar.

As for socialized medicine, I am convinced that there are changes to be made, but I am undecided as to the specifics. There are far too many noncitizens who travel to this country for adequate care, and I personally have known residents of Massachusetts who, suffering from serious health problems, have relocated.

So again, I will say: "what does this have to do with Atheism, the topic of the original post?"
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 361 (view)
 
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 11/16/2009 7:05:15 PM
That is incorrect. The tables are formulated based on a paying parent's income, and a preconceived level that is supposed to equate to one's "ability to pay"


I don't think so , but I agree that it depends to an extent on the state in which you reside. No matter your income in NY, the same percentage applies, and it is based on actuarial tables which figure the percentage of one's income that is contributed to the children. It is assumed that those with higher income afford their child "luxuries" not afforded to those with lower incomes, and ensures the children are not "harmed" by the loss of those things, whether they be nicer clothes, bigger homes,etc. I find that fair, as it also ensures to an extent that the other parent contribute financially, even if they didn't before, in order to ensure their children do not have to sacrifice. Alimony is a separate argument, and some do receive it, but for many, personal experience is that it is simply not a "given" in this day & age. Many are the women who remained at home, supported by a man, and now find themselves out in the workforce so that their childrens' lifestyle remains the same..


If it were based on the costs to raise a child, there would be no tables. That would greatly reduce the number of people underemploying themselves because they would pay the same whether they were making $10,000/year, $100,000/year, or $1,000,000

You are right, yet it would also be unfair to those who struggled and yet were able to "make it" by sacrificing. CS is intended for the support of the particular children, to insure that THEIR lives remain as they were prior to having their parents split. If I can raise my child on less than most parents, say, by choosing to be frugal, buying them secondhand clothing, presents only at Christmas,etc., so that I can spend more time with them. why should I forced to spend less time fostering a relationship with them so that I can work more in order to come up with the cash deemed "necessary" to provide for them? Conversely, why should someone suddenly have to buy secondhand clothing for their children, when they have been quite used to designer clothing? I do think the percentage of income tables seem fair, for this reason. The choices we make for our children should remain, whether we adults choose to remain together or not. One's offspring are not meant to live with the consequences for which their parents are responsible.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 220 (view)
 
Condoning Atheism.
Posted: 11/16/2009 6:40:42 PM
Marriage and laws regarding such came about as a way to ensure procreation, and property rights, as wives were considered property. Surely, there is nothing wrong with the changes that society has made! The fact that two people, man & woman, are unable, or even unwilling to procreate doesn't make them ineligible for marriage, so that may not be a valid argument against same sex marriage. Truth is, as far as legality, it boils down to money, as do most major changes that require changes in statute. Truth is, much of the arguments based on allowing same sex marriage are also based on money, insurance coverage, tax status, etc. Valid "slippery slope" arguments could ensue as well. For example, as the ONLY group of people who DUE TO their sexual orientation, engage in the behavior most risky as far as contracting aids, are homosexual men, insurance companies could refuse to cover their treatment. It may seem ridiculous, but it could well end up a valid legal argument. The arguments presented thus far do not address the money issue. Arguments based on religious beliefs are no more or less effective than those based on personal feelings due to upbringing aside from religion, either.

In any case, what does any of this have to do with Atheism?!?! There are plenty of homosexual, as well as heterosexual Christians, who believe that God loves everyone, just as HE made them. If YOUR God doesn't believe that Muslims, or Catholics, etc., are deserving, does that mean no one else gets into heaven? or that no one else deserves to marry? Seems a bit ridiculous, at best, and very unchristian, if you ask me. Lest we not forget, Jesus consorted with sinners, and promoted "love thy neighbor as thyself" as second only to loving God. He also said "judge not". Belief in the word of God is no argument against those who don't believe as you do, any more than choosing to disbelieve results from not acting in accordance with those who make one feel as if they have 'sinned" for living a lifestyle outside of the norm. It is a conscious choice, but unless it is made after a personal study of what God is, rather than religious organizations, is about, it is no more intelligent than any opinion based on personal experience without thought.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 558 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/15/2009 9:39:05 PM
[You pro-choice women are just as bad as the anti-abortion zealots you despise. They want to force a woman to become a mother regardless of whether she desires it or not. By giving birth to a child when the father of that child doesn't want to become a father, a woman is essentially doing the same thing to him.]

I am curious to know what you think your statement has to do with this thread? What makes you think that a woman who is pro choice despises any one, in particular? What are you trying to say? Thus far, most arguments have included the factual. Women don't force men to give birth! Men, as well as women, are held responsible for a life they both created. The fact that children are not brought forth from a man isn't the decision of women, it is a biological fact. It is NOT a power play! Abortion is legal. Even if it weren't, men still wouldn't have any say. The choice to give birth is that of a woman, so long as abortion remains legal. Do you feel that it should be a man's right to force a woman to abort? Your logic (or lack of same)escapes me.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 30 (view)
 
A gift idea for a woman who gives a birth to your child...
Posted: 11/15/2009 9:03:49 PM
Anything they will have always, even a card, is extra special. What a heartwarming thought!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 353 (view)
 
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 11/15/2009 9:02:09 PM
[Yeah liz, that would so much worse than those that skipped taking the pill thinking it was a good idea to have a child to strengthen a relationship or slept with the neighbour and told him it was his. What nerve, eh?]

The truth is that the posts here are all made based on personal experience, as is the quote above. The question, though, is general. CS payment amounts are based on actuarial tables formulated by the costs to raise a child, period. They assume that each parent takes an interest in the well being of the child, and also assume that neither parent is so bitter that take it out against that child(ren). Unfortunate that this is not the case, but the percentages in general are fair, whether one wants to admit it or not.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 204 (view)
 
Condoning Atheism.
Posted: 11/15/2009 8:53:22 PM
Sorry, but I fail to see what homosexuality, child molesters & the like have to do with a belief in God. Organized religion, and strict adherence to such, are apart from the belief in a higher power, aren't they? Isn't that what this topic is about?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 58 (view)
 
Prove Me Wrong, PLEASE
Posted: 11/15/2009 8:37:11 PM
[It has been quite some time since I've been so passionate- I typically stick to rationality and maintain composure.

Regardless, living in one's own mind merits for a wake up call, sooner or later and recently I've been acquiring such an experience. (I am single, btw, and primarily here to learn as I've paid so little attention to such things growing up).

A gift is not a reward, to me. It is an offering of something because the one offering wants to give it and, ideally, it is wanted from the one receiving it.

I understand I am very young and probably quite naive even for my age but it is partially for that reason that I've created this thread- for perspective of others.

I am highly in disapproval of society's established norm because I cling to the ideal that people can do better than this.

The thoughtful replies are appreciated and your words will be coontemplated deeply.]

I apologize to some extent for earlier post, as I didn't know you were 18. Truth is, at 18,you are unlikely to find one who thinks or feels as you do, for any length of time. Still, you may date my daughter!

Having said that, :
[Sex is not something to do without in a romantic relationship from my perspective, but it is only to be shared when it has been established that a bond has been formed that can withstand the absence of the act.]

Romantic relationship do not begin thusly. There are very few that remain romantic in the "absence of the act", for it is NOT an act, it sharing, and an integral part of the relationship.

Morality is subjective, and self respect seems to be on the decline, but it remains paramount. Hold on to yours; you are appreciated by parents the world over!

Help! I do the "[" thing, but don't always get the gray box!!

Also, how come some of us can have more than two of the last ten posts?!?!

 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 57 (view)
 
Prove Me Wrong, PLEASE
Posted: 11/15/2009 8:24:59 PM
["Woman give sex for love, men give love for sex."]

Only until about age 30, or after having children.

[It is a primeval drive for men to impregnate women, it is what enables the survival of the species. It is natural and it is necessary.]

Sex and making babies are not the same thing. There;s this thing called evolution, and now, birth control. P.S. Women like sex, too!

{Those of you (male or female) who have a partner or have had one, would you have been able to remain with them if sex were not involved?]

Assuming you mean a romantic partner, no; a tennis partner, sure!

{Is it who and what the person is that keeps you attached or is it simply that you have good combatibility and find pleasure in each others arms?}

Who & what the person is both keeps you attached & allows you ton find pleasure in each other. Sex does help keep you connected, as an expression of such.

[How important is sex in your relationship as compared to who the person is?]

It is part of who the person is, a sharing.

[How many of you are on here mostly to find sex?]

You can find sex anywhere! I will admit, though, that there are many here that seem to be looking for a quick lay only. That is likely due to the fact that it is free, and that they strike out in the real world.

[It often times seems that sex is the requirement for a relationship, not respect, love, or appreciation.]

Of course, it depends on the relationship you seek. Sex is a requirement for many, not THE requirement! Even those who seek sex alone should t least be respectful, love is not necessary for sex, and most are appreciative.

[Prove me wrong, PLEASE.]

Wrong about what?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 556 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/15/2009 8:12:54 PM
This argument has gotten completely ridiculous! Look, there are biological differences, period. Those differences result in the fact that only women can make a choice when it comes to what is to be done to with their bodies. Women decide the importance they place on the prevention of pregnancy, and the importance they place on bearing a child. Men decide ONLY the importance they place on having a child. Do you think it fair that women have two things to worry about and men only one? Inane; it's just the way it is! The argument about the fairness of such is separate from the arguments presented here. If you want to argue that men should have the right to impose their will on the use of the body of another, then do so, but to attempt it under the guise that all women seek to "trap" men into financial harm is preposterous. No woman can force a man to be a father, only to pay for his share of expenses. How would one logically ( a term used loosely here!) present the scenario: a man wants a baby, but a woman doesn't? I guess rape should be legal, then. There is no "apples to apples" argument here, and there will never be, unless men can one day bear children. Is that really so hard to see? Or has bitterness & "bad picking" led many to believe that women use the fact that only they can bear children as a means to make someone's life hell? Of course, raising a child alone has absolutely no effect on the woman, right?

No matter the scenario, the truth remains. Women do not have to be careful so that MEN don't have to bear responsibility, and men don't have to be careful so that WOMEN don't have to bear responsibility. It is up to the individual to set their priorities & act accordingly. If a woman is dead set against having a child, it is up to HER to prevent it. If a man is dead set against being responsible for a child, it is up to HIM to not impregnate women. Men & women have different options, but they still have options, and it's all about priorities. Word twisting & faulty logic, even when phrased intelligently, are still meaningless. If not having a child is important to YOU, regardless of your gender, it is up to YOU to prevent it from happening.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 494 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 8:44:25 PM
[The overwhelming majority of " six year old mentality" in this thread has been "but, it's not fair! You should keep "it" in your pants!!".Which is quite ironic, as they all seem to want "it" inside them and are AS willing to take the chance of a pregnancy.
Why aren't they running at the sight of "it"?
I'll spare you my analysis.]]

The "keep it in your pants" has to do with the value you place on preventing unwanted pregnancy. "They all", when combined with your previous posts, suggests that you feel women trap men by purposely becoming pregnant. The desire for sex is not directly related to the desire to create life, for many, men & women alike. "Accidents" happen, and prevention of unwanted pregnancy is the responsibility of both parties. That being said, the higher the priority one places on having to deal with the consequence of unwanted pregnancy, thee greater is the responsibility borne by that individual.

Your "analysis" is of no consequence, as far as logic. Likely it would cause you more harm than good, in the dating world, anyway. It is not the majority of women who seek to bear children of men who want nothing to do with those children, raise them alone & bear their share of the financial responsibility. If you truly believe that it is, I pity you.

As far as imposing one's will, do you think the greater good would be served by allowing men to impose abortion or adoption on the women they impregnated? Would that be fair? Logic would dictate that the decision is to be made by the one who carries and bears a child. It is the child who has the right to be supported by both of it's creators, not the woman. As I have said, men do have the right to exercise free will, they simply have to exercise it earlier on than does a woman. . You may think it unfair, but unless you level the playing field by ensuring that men can also become pregnant, it is logical.

[Your opinions on what I do accomplish, or don't accomplish, are of no interest to me, other than my amusement.
I'm as pleased with my posts as you appear to be with yours.]

Accomplishment doesn't play a hand whatsoever in addressing the point. If you are vehemently opposed to making a child, and successfully accomplish that, good for you, and thank you for furthering my argument.
I do not find this topic one bit amusing; if you do, you are twisted. I have no need to convince you personally; I was, apparently, misguided in my assessment of you as an intelligent, logical individual.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 403 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:16:51 PM
[Yes. I would have given up my rights to exercise free will. The woman is capable of imposing her will on mine.
How would you feel if man imposed his will on you? And the law supported it]

You DO exercise free will, with knowledge of the consequence, when you remove your pants. I am not negating your feelings. I am, however, defending the position that both parties involved in the making of another human being are equally responsible for that child. For many years, men did impose their will on women, at least those to whom they were wed. Wives were property. Laws can be changed. Seeking to absolve a party to an action, the consequences of which are known prior to engaging in the activity, of their responsibilities is not comparable.

The need to argue in defense of those who are in fact, "wronged", or "duped" is valid. To assume, however, that ALL unplanned pregnancies are the result of some form of "malice aforethought" by those whose gender gives them the "power" to do so, is immature, illogical, and speaks not to the problem at hand. Furthermore, it gives credence to the argument that those with poor judgment bear the consequences.

[That's a strawman.
The strawman being that it is NOT a forgone conclusion that a baby WILL result.
The man doesn't "make" a life. The woman does. If SHE chooses NOT to, there will be NO baby.
The man is NOT given a choice.
Sexist double standard.]

I have no idea why you so in love with the "strawman" term, which assumes questionable activity, and has nothing at all to with the fact that it is not unreasonable to assume that pregnancy can result from sex. Sure, there are women who lie about the use of contraceptives, just as surely as there are men who lie about having had a vasectomy. That is another reason to exercise good judgment when picking a sexual partner. No woman makes a life alone, it takes two; statements to the contrary are ignorant. A women doesn't choose not to make a life a life, she has a choice whether or not to end one, or if one adheres to that notion that "life" doesn't begin until a certain number of weeks, not to give birth. I never said pregnancy was a forgone conclusion, but the risk of such IS, and both parties do indeed have a choice. The importance of the RISK to either party is the deciding factor as to the degree to which either party is responsible tol go in making their CHOICE to prevent having to deal with the consequence. That is logic, not based on emotion. Not a double standard and not sexist either, merely a timing & biological difference.

[You're building that "fool" strawman on a scenario that "nothing" was taken as a precaution.
The "fool" in your strawman could be EITHER the man or the woman.
You would consider them BOTH fools. That's redundant.
The reality is that your strawman is not only presuming, but entirely MOOT.

It doesn't change the fact, that even if BOTH the man and woman were careless, neglectful, the WOMAN has the free will to opt OUT from an unwanted pregnancy from occurring, and a baby being brought into the world and the man does not.]

You are correct in that my statement was intended, and plainly so, to those who exercised poor judgment. If you were "tricked", then you are a fool in your judgment of character, and as such, bear the consequence, regardless of gender. If you and your partner both did not feel you wanted to deal with the responsibility of caring for another person, and tried to prevent it, but it was an accident, then you both bear the consequence. At that point, yes, the final choice is hers, by biology alone. In that case, it is something to be worked out together, but there is a still a responsibility, and a consequence, more so on the woman, either way. Strange that you would assert your right to IMPOSE YOUR WILL on her. You'll never experience giving birth nor aborting a fetus; sexist double standard?

In any case:
[The fool is the one who is stuck in a situation they had no desire to be in, yet did nothing to protect themselves.] is not scenario building, it is a statement, and it is truthful.


[It is "telling" in that it is an overused method of arguing when one is incapable of winning the debate on a point, or topic.
We are talking about A, you talk about B and claim that it proves A is wrong.]

It is telling in that is assumes questionable activity. I have never assumed that either party involved in a sexual relationship is doing do in order to ruin the life of the other party; you have! If that is "A", then I certainly prefer "B", a discussion of what actually occurs in the real world the majority of the time.

[The woman has free will to prevent a baby becoming born as a result.
The man does not have free will to prevent a baby becoming born as a result.]

You continue to argue with me, but you fail to argue the POINT. I have no personal agenda here; I am both "fixed" and postmenopausal! It's not about a baby being born, especially for the man, who, I agree does not the choice to bear children. He does, however, have a choice in creating a baby, and he has a say in that. The point isn't a child being born, it's MAKING a child, The degree of importance to which one gives this point is directly related to their responsibility to either prevent or make it happen.

There are many differences between the genders; this issue is simply one of them. Individuals are each responsible for prioritizing, and in doing so, they are compelled to make choices, the consequences of which they are compelled to live with. One's bitterness toward the perceived "upper hand" given to another by virtue of gender, race, IQ, whatever, doesn't change that fact.

Given that this is an emotional issue for many, I'll ignore your immature comments directed toward me as if this were a contest of sorts, but it really is a pretty simple argument, as far as logic would dictate. When one takes the six year old mentality of "but, it's not fair!" out of the equation, it's pretty clear that everyone has a choice. The choices to be made differ as to timing, depending on your gender, but they remain choices, and like all other choices, when made logically, are done so based on priorities.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 356 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/12/2009 9:35:45 PM
[No, you are wrong. It's already been demonstrated clearly that once a woman has the man's DNA, he has NO choice but to accept whatever decision the woman makes, and the law condones it.
You're merely being ignorant in this regard to suit your agenda. One only needs to read your profile to see it clearl]

I am NOT wrong! Because it is fact that a man has no choice in the use of a woman's body, the decision begins, for a man, when he decides to DONATE his DNA, all the while having full knowledge of the possible repercussions. You know full well that you will be held responsible for the life you made, and that giving birth is a task taken on solely by women. The only difference is WHEN the choice is made. You, as a man, decide how important the risk is to you.
I have no agenda; I have never been in a position where I sought to "trap" a man. My children were planned during a long standing marriage. I care not a rats azz if you judge my profile. Experience, and lack of free time leads me to weed out those who I realize are a waste of it! In any case, that has no bearing on the logic which I use to argue against your position.

[You're being utterly foolish to try and use "nature dictates" as a basis for argument.
I could then use the fact that "nature" has designed it that men can physically dominate over women, that should be a basis for men not being punished for raping women, as nature didn't intend for the woman to be strong enough to prevent rape, and the resulting pregnancy propagates the species.
The other aspect of your claim which makes no sense is the absolving the one with all the decision making power, and putting the onus on the one who's a powerless bystander.
If, for example you were to be a passenger in someone's car, and they deliberately decided to drive head on into an abutment, the passenger is as much to blame as the driver for the driver's decision?

Your ability to look at things objectively is entirely non existent. But thanks for the laugh]

Sorry, sweetie, but your logic is again faulty. "Nature dictates" is simply not the same as taking advantage. The man who refuses to acknowledge his role in reproduction is not comparable to an act of violence. Men who are capable of having sex ARE strong enough to don a condom, or have a vasectomy, if they find the risk abhorrent. Even if it were, the result, bearing the consequence, remains. Nature doesn't intend anyone to be assaulted. Further, the one with decision making power is most certainly not absolved, as they often bear the brunt of the responsibility; certainly, they do in the cases which you refer to. "Powerless bystander"? Spare me.; sad that you find men so weak. I suggest that is you who are incapable of objectivity. I have suggested nothing more than that the greater responsibility is on the party who feels the most strongly, and I stand that.

[See my previous driver/passenger analogy. You just don't get it do you? Of course not. You are entirely incapable of seeing it from an objective perspective that both the male and female are equally present in taking the risk.
However, your attempts to frame it as the woman being a victim are simply illogical, as there are alternatives in an unwanted pregnancy. The decision to take an alternative measure, to mitigate the outcome, to change her mind, are entirely up to the female.
What you would like is to condone and enable women to dictate the outcome.
Your agenda is clear.
When it benefits the woman to be in absolute power, you endorse extortion and tyranny.]

Your passenger analogy is meaningless, as far as logic is concerned. Were that the case, the only analogy would be that of one who knowingly gets in the passenger seat with a drunk driver. If you choose not to protect yourself, you are responsible for the consequences.
I argue that it is YOU who seem incapable of seeing the objective perspective. Both male & female are equally present in risk taking, and I never said otherwise, but ONLY the woman is capable of making the decision to bear a child, and that fact is known to BOTH parties. It is up to the individual to decide which risk is greater. Do you not acknowledge the sacrifice in raising a child, particularly when one does so alone? Do you not acknowledge the sacrifice borne by the child? I have not portrayed the women as victims, at all. The only "victim" is the child, if they are unwanted and unloved, by either parent. That you choose to infer my statement that only women can dictate the outcome as condoning such is inane; this is a FACT, not the result of anything I have done personally. Your choice of words, that I "would like to condone" speaks to your character, not mine, as the fact that women dictate the outcome, has nothing at all to do with me; it is simply a fact. I have no need for absolute power, nor do I seek to further it, for either gender. I promote personal responsibility, nothing more, yet I will not remain silent when those who seek to exercise their right to act in their own interests refuse to acknowledge their responsibilities. . It is evident to me that you are the one with an agenda; you know nothing at all about me, yet you judge me. I suggest you get yourself "fixed".

[Complete idiocy? You wish...]

No, I don't wish you were a complete idiot! I wish you would use the brain you were blessed with, before you suffer consequences unacceptable to you!!

[So the logical solution is that we should give all the benefit of the doubt to the woman, huh?
Brilliant reasoning....]

It's not about benefit of the doubt, it's about fact! The fact that the woman has the rights to her body makes it simple, if not having the responsibility for a child is a priority.

[I guess it escapes you that laws are passed to suit political agendas, and some have little to do with being fair and objective.
A woman doesn't need to resort to invasion of her body to terminate the pregancy, she can prevent the pregnancy from occuring by simply taking a "Morning After" pill, after the fact.]

I never brought up the political agenda. If your problem is with the laws, then do something about it! For now, though, the onus is on the party to whom the risk is significant. Attacking me, or women in general, seems a waste of time.


[So, don't get in the passenger seat with a woman behind the wheel, is what you're saying....]

At least, be sure to wear a seat belt! Perhaps it would be wise to know a bit about the driver beforehand.

[No, it's not that simple. As both the man and the woman are responsible for partaking in the sex. The woman is as capable of taking preventative measures pre/during/post sex. The man can only attempt during sex.]

It IS that simple! Partaking in the sex is only half of the equation. The willingness to take on the risk of the activity is up to the individual, and the level of protection against that risk is decided by the priorities of the individual involved. Of course, the woman is capable, and it is assumed that YOU are capable of choosing sexual partners who adhere to your standards and expectations; your choice of women to participate with is your responsibility. If it a high priority OF YOURS to prevent a child, the responsibility to do so is YOUR responsibility, period.

[You wish.
You are the one trying to debate logic.
Who's the fool who attempts that and thinks they're going to win]

Logic is not easily debated: A+B=C.
The fool is the one who is stuck in a situation they had no desire to be in, yet did nothing to protect themselves.

[Wrong.
The consequences are dictated by the decisions of the woman, not the direct action of having his sperm inside her, as SHE can decide to eliminate the ramifications of that, which make reduce his "actions" to indirect actions, and indirect consequences.

A MAN cannot dictate and command a woman to make his child no matter what HE wants. But she can choose and force him to be a FATHER as long as she has access to his DNA.]

Now, THAT is foolish! The dictation of the consequences are of no consequence at all, to those who follow logic! They are KNOWN to the parties on whom they may fall, before their fruition. Do you mean the direct action of PUTTING HIS SPERM INSIDE HER, knowing full well the consequence? Semantics doesn't change the equation. Of what difference is it that the consequence is direct or indirect? You choose with whom you lay., no matter your gender.

{It's not important to me personally. I've obviously managed this dilemma.]

It seems that you have gotten it. Why then, the vitriolic attack? Have you a vendetta against personal responsibility?

[It's simple because it's a strawman built to suit your agenda.
You can build it anyway you want, when you eschew facts and logic.
That's why women who cannot be rationalized with are in very low demand for committed relationships.]

Who are you to assume my agenda? The facts are the facts, and my logic is very rational. Sure, I advocate personal responsibility, and on a personal level, I have never sought to hurt anyone. Not that it matters, but my committed relationships lasted 5, 20 & 3 yrs., respectively. My confidence and self esteem remain unshaken. Your overuse of the term "strawman" is telling.

[There are many alternatives and measures a woman can take that can mitigate the outcome of the quid pro quo, and alter lives.]

Same goes for men.

[It's always the guy who is the one who can't keep it in his pants.
Are all these woman being raped? None of these women were the ones who said "Baby, please, I want to...."

Women are always the innocent victims aren't they?]

Those are your word, not mine. I never even hinted that women were the innocents, but the children are. No matter who had what agenda, the children born of irresponsible behavior, or lack of foresight, still deserve to be supported. Men & women alike share in the responsibility for those they produce. That is my statement, and I defend it, without prejudice or judgment, but I'll not back down on my logic. One goes into a sexual relationship with knowledge of the risks, and in doing so is subject to the consequences. whether they deem them fair or not. Priorities should dictate who "rules" the outcome.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 321 (view)
 
An unofficial look at CS payment amounts.
Posted: 11/12/2009 8:02:49 PM
[ I'll be sending through a quarter million dollars myself by the time my kids hit 18. That's a lot of "support" mone]

Just curious: do you think it'd be a lesser amount, were you & your child's mother together?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 409 (view)
 
I Don't Need A Man.., I very Independent..etc etc = RED Flags?
Posted: 11/12/2009 7:39:58 PM
17 pages!!! It would seem that many see "need" and "needy" as interchangeable, or at least they perceive that the opposite sex sees it that way. It would seem, as well, that many sense that "needing" the one person whom you have a relationship with is necessary, and, at the opposite end of the spectrum, are those who perceive "needing" a person as needing to be in a relationship. Truth is, all these statements are true, to different persons.

I think that the reason many declare their independence is that they don't want to be seen as needy, as in, needing to be in a relationship,which ( sadly, even as we [supposedly] mature), is true for many. Statements of independence are subjective, but, hey, this isn't real life. Call them as you see them!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 112 (view)
 
Condoning Atheism.
Posted: 11/11/2009 9:47:00 PM
The world is full of paradox. Teaching your children that there is a higher power, of any sort, doesn't seem harmful to me. I honestly believe that there is a difference between organized religion & a belief system, although religion is often a good start. There is nothing wrong with teaching kids that there is a Santa and letting them find out in their own time, that Santa Claus is really the spirit of Christmas, rather than a physical being. There are many philosophical theories debating the existence of God. Is there something wrong with "whatever works for you"? One can find, and teach, comfort wherever they are most comfortable doing so. For me personally, I was raised Catholic, and, despite the fact that I attended parochial school my entire life, I have no problem with disputing literal "facts". I also have no problem believing in a higher power who loves me, and expects me to love others as well. I fail to see the harm in that, and I do see the harm in not teaching kids anything at all in this regard. As a matter of fact, I see it on a daily basis, now that my own children are in public school, where disrespect, both for self & others, runs rampant, and there is nothing to aspire to, as a human being in possession of a soul. My feelings have nothing st all to do with guilt or retribution, rather, love & comfort.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 340 (view)
 
Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/11/2009 9:32:25 PM
[The AMA has come out and fully supported medical marijuana. It's about time people got up and spoke the truth.]

While I tend towards defending pot, even for recreational use, I have to say that the medicinal use of marijuana is a completely different animal which should be supported by anyone with a brain!. Bluesman is right! It is asinine that marijuana for medicinal purposes has not yet been legalized everywhere! Powdered heroin is legal to reduce pain, for chrissake! Media induced stigma is to blame, but no excuse for ignorance in this day & age.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 293 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/11/2009 9:19:29 PM
[But if you are talking child support, that is an entirely different call of wax. Technically, you are speaking of extorting money for your decision.]

You are wrong! Both parties were involved in the decision. Biology forces men to make the decision before they take off their pants; that's the only difference. CS is not extortion, it's enforcing responsible behavior.

[But there are also alternatives.]

Of course, there are alternatives, but nature dictates that the alternatives exist only for females. You can cry "unfair" all you want, but it is a known fact, known prior to behavior which may result in pregnancy. If you fall prey to bad judgment, well, that's a steep price to pay, but it's still based on your judgment, made while all the while assuming the risk. "caveat emptor", in a manner of speaking.

[No. If the woman claims she is on the pill, and isn't, it's fraud, and entrapment.]

Point taken. Still, it's about priorities. If it is of utmost importance to YOU, it's YOUR responsibility to prevent, or to provide. Make the decisions prior to assuming the risk. We're talking about a human life here, not a misdemeanor charge!


[And some of the exact actions of the women, in these scenarios, would in other circumstances be considered crimes punishable by law.]

As you said, strawman! We're not talking about other circumstances, and you know it, before you consent to "risky" activity". Mean what you say, verity!

[It should be that if she chooses to do so without the consent of the father, that she understands that she alone will be assuming the responsibility.

Put that policy in place, and I bet the rate of pregnancy drops considerably.]

I cry foul at your attempts to exert logic on one hand, and complete idiocy on the other. Who could possibly prove consent? Besides, the legality of abortion is based on having control over one's own body, and the body is ALWAYS a woman's. Until you can change that, logic dictates that the decision lies with the woman.

[Why is your advice one sided? It takes two to tango.
Oh. I get it. It's only the woman who is a victim of consequence...]

Not at all, but it's the woman who has CONTROL of the consequence; you said it yourself! And we all know that...! so, consequences risked, once they come to fruition, are yours to bear. Period.


[At that point, she's got a gun to his head. You don't get that.]

YOU don't get that you pull the trigger when you decide to risk the outcome! Again, it's about priorities. If the risk of having to support a child is paramount, the onus is on you to prevent it from happening. It really is that simple. You can argue about the fairness of such all you want, but it is the way it is, so, deal with it!

[That's disingenuous. What you mean to say is, if you can't deal with the consequences that are arbitrated by the woman, then avoid sex]

You're full of sh%t! The consequences are the result of YOUR actions. If it is so important to you, work to change the laws before you assume the risk. Your word twisting doesn't change the facts: only women get pregnant, only women have the option to keep a child, there are two people responsible for making said child, and two people responsible for supporting it. Seems fairly simple to me.


[Such objective, understanding, compassionate and sympathetic souls you ar]

In light of the fact that the result we are talking about here (and, honestly, the one who suffers the consequences the most, when one has the attitude portrayed here) is a human being, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 61 (view)
 
Am I wrong?
Posted: 11/10/2009 10:18:17 PM
[OP, the more you post, the more it sounds like maybe you have some regrets & a little anger towards this guy. So, you've gone out of your way to not go out of your way to facilitate a father/daughter relationship. IDK, seems a little selfish to me...]

So unfair, navigator! It is not up to her to "go out of the way" to make the father of her child have a relationship with the child! The only selfish one, as the situation is portrayed, is the father.

To me, it seem as if she is unsure whether she is denying her child something that is rightfully hers, and, imo, she is. However, the potential ensuing drama/trauma may well not be worth it.

That having been said, OP, I disagree that you can be a good person & a bad father, at ;east as far as taking responsibility goes. A good person does the right thing; if you are not "cut out" to be a parent, then at least be financially responsible. A "good person" does not shirk their responsibilities, does not hurt those whom they should care for, and yes, you certainly SHOULD care for those who you are responsible for bringing into the world. A good person "steps up", makes sacrifices, and admits fault. But the character of your ex is not mine to judge. Do whatever you feel comfortable with.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 60 (view)
 
Am I wrong?
Posted: 11/10/2009 10:11:25 PM
[OP, the more you post, the more it sounds like maybe you have some regrets & a little anger towards this guy. So, you've gone out of your way to not go out of your way to facilitate a father/daughter relationship. IDK, seems a little selfish to me...]

So unfair, navigator! It is not up to her to "go out of the way" to make the father of her child have a relationship with the child! The only selfish one, as the situation is portrayed, is the father.

To me, it seem as if she is unsure whether she is denying her child something that is rightfully hers, and, imo, she is. However, the potential ensuing drama/trauma may well not be worth it.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 77 (view)
 
Condoning Atheism.
Posted: 11/10/2009 10:02:48 PM
[Some Jehovahs Witnesses recently left a copy of bible stories for children on my doorstep.
So i thought okkkk, i guess thats nice of them, spirituality is good for children, even though i have recently took initiation into the Dianic tradition and left Abrahamic religion behind, and normally do not care for the door to door religion salespeople.

So i handed my daughter the book, and told her why not read it out loud to her little brother, so they can both enjoy it.
Silly me, i thought thew book would be filled with sweet little things like "Jesus loves the children of the word" and stuff like that.
So my daughter approached me warily, book in hand, and said that the book is scary and she doesnt like it and that it will make Charles cry, she looked like she wanted to cry herse]

I will admit that I am curious to know how old your daughter is, and depending, why you would hand any child a book to read without perusing it yourself first?

Religion can be a difficult subject, and a personal one. Organized religion even more so. For me, I teach my children my beliefs, in increments that apply to their age, in order to be somewhat confident that they can make their own judgments. I will share that, having been schooled in Parochial schools my entire life, I feel that the sense of community that comes from participation in a "church", of any kind, is invaluable (and sorely lacking) in today's society, but I do believe that tempering one's interpretation of the interpretations of others with common sense and logic is the ultimate goal.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 109 (view)
 
Multiple children by multiple partners
Posted: 11/10/2009 9:52:19 PM
[The reason for the judgement is because we are living in a society where the cost of bad judgement is increasinglay charged to the account of those who had nothing to do with it..]

[Thi is a big part of it... however, people will decry that it's not costing you anything...
conveniently overlooking
increaed taxes... to pay for...:
increased social services costs...
increased demand for daycare subsidies...
increased support services like paying for youth groups...
and the myriad other little costs..]

More likely, it is the cost of low self esteem & ignorance, and unfortunately, the cost is often borne by the children themselves.

Still, mchurch is right, yet we are often powerless to do a thing about it. There are educational programs, yet one can only lead a horse to water.....
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 404 (view)
 
vaccines=autism?????
Posted: 11/10/2009 9:46:06 PM
[In other words, GR found that vacinated children had LESS autism than unvaccinated children]

Not true at all! You would have to compare the INCIDENCE of percentages of the un-vaccinated against those of the vaccinated. Of course this is difficult to do in the US where most children are vaccinated. Also difficult to do in countries where vaccines are not routinely provided, as those countries are not likely to diagnose autism, or many other diseases. The fact remains, while there may or may not be a link between autism & vaccines, more children are protected than are harmed. Again, sacrifice of the few for the good of the many. I do realize it seems heartless, but it is the simple truth.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 266 (view)
 
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/10/2009 9:38:05 PM
From what I can glean, some men never want to marry because they fear financial repercussions. We are all entitled to our feelings; what's the big deal? If marriage is your goal, date those who feel differently
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 253 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/10/2009 9:34:35 PM
There are good people and bad, represented in both genders. For every women who hurts her child by preventing them from having a relationship with a father who cares, there is a man who cares not at all. As far as playing God, of course women are not playing God simply by becoming pregnant. The only difference in choice regarding pregnancy is when the choice is made.

[The issue here isn't whether they are or they aren't, it's that they have the exclusive ability to and that's simply not right. It needs to change now...today. It's not about morality, it's about equity]

Forgive me, but this statement is simply asinine! Women didn't choose to be the only ones capable of bearing children, it's simply a fact of life. If you can figure out a way to change that, have at it! In the meantime, the degree of importance to the individual should be the decisive factor. Common sense tells us that if it is important NOT to have a child, the onus is on you to prevent it, period. If anyone, man or woman, wants to support the right to abort, they have to support the right of the individual to have control over their own body, and that individual is always female, by nothing more than biology. Unfortunate (if you think so) that ONLY women CAN have this right, as it only their body that is affected. Your "simply not right" statement is meaningless, unless of course, you are directing your statement at God. To knowingly (the operative word here) engage in an act which could result in a situation not under your control, then complain that you have no control, is ignorant.

While I agree that there are vindictive women, you'll not convince me that the majority of women raising children alone sought to do so; "tricked" a man into getting them pregnant, then said "we don't need you", "I can support & care for this child alone". Simply not the case, for the majority. The stories, in fact, are long & diverse, but very rarely are they as some of you suggest.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 255 (view)
 
Sex versus love
Posted: 11/9/2009 7:41:16 PM
[.you know what? after 13 years alone... if just for a moment... and not having a man in my life that loves or cares for me... I got to live it.
And maybe its enough to take me through another 13 years alone.

But I do know... if thats what other women are doing... Id hate to feel that pain all the time.
So I dont think its the sex that binds them... or being able to disconnect themselves emotionally that they do it... or that they dont have feelings.
I think ... they're just human... and even for a brief moment... even if its not true... want to feel loved.]

How sad; to admit to the association between sex & love, yet discredit it. Of course, the association exists. It is a very special way of sharing love. No, it doesn't have to be, but to NEVER be? I am not trying to judge this poster, but read between the lines. Sometimes, casual sex is nothing more than a shield, and that is not something to defend; it is something to overcome.
 
Show ALL Forums