• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Taxpayers On The Hook To Feed Children

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
I have never proposed, nor would I support, a law preventing women from working.

We need simply stop encouraging women to be men.
So you basically have no way of enforcing your plan, at all? Then you shouldn't be able to complain about the consequences of your inaction (lower wages etc.)

Any woman who wishes to be independent from men should be free too provided she is truly willing to be independent from them.

Of course we that means that they do not get any:
1.) Government enforced child support or
2.) Government forcing men to subsidize their health insurance
3.) Government providing funding special women's health clinics
4.) Government providing special laws to protect them from domestic violence
5.) Government providing welfare to pay for their bastard children.
etc

Once they realize what being independent means, well then I think they may reconsider.
Does the bolded mean you think women are going to suddenly give up their freedom?

I agree that government should also provide funding for men's health clinics, that insurance companies should be able to charge based on gender, and that domestic violence laws should support both sexes (even if it is more commonly towards women).

Child support and paying for bastards kids is not a universal male-female transfer though. Nor is it a transfer to women at all.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
And a man who gets a woman pregnant has exactly 0% control over what the woman does. He has no power and hence no responsibility, see how that works.
He has power in determining whether a woman gets pregnant though, so to say he has no power is false.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
So you basically have no way of enforcing your plan, at all? Then you shouldn't be able to complain about the consequences of your inaction (lower wages etc.)
I explain below that reality will enforce my plan once women are forced to deal with the the consequences of independence.


Does the bolded mean you think women are going to suddenly give up their freedom?
I am saying that once they realize what not having a man to rely on means they will reconsider their choice. And will choose differently than they do now.

I agree that government should also provide funding for men's health clinics, that insurance companies should be able to charge based on gender, and that domestic violence laws should support both sexes (even if it is more commonly towards women).
Excellent.

Child support and paying for bastards kids is not a universal male-female transfer though. Nor is it a transfer to women at all.
Yes it is. A man has no way to force a woman to bare his bastard child and give it to him.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
He has power in determining whether a woman gets pregnant though, so to say he has no power is false.
And the Supreme Court has ruled, and liberals agree 200%, that pregnancy does not mean the a child must be born. A child is only born if a woman CHOOSES to carry the fetus to term.

And the man clearly has less power in determining if a woman gets pregnant as all of the most effective forms of BC are controlled by the woman.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
I explain below that reality will enforce my plan once women are forced to deal with the the consequences of independence.
So what batshit religious sect are you part of, you are cribbing a lot of Sharia law, but also I'm sensing some FLDS in there. Lot of hatred towards women and the idea of a women thinking on their own is repellent to you..hmm.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
So what batshit religious sect are you part of, you are cribbing a lot of Sharia law, but also I'm sensing some FLDS in there. Lot of hatred towards women and the idea of a women thinking on their own is repellent to you..hmm.
And which part of Sharia law would you find mandatory abortions for women who cannot afford to raise children?

Women are free to be independent assuming they actually are independent, instead of being free to do what they want and having the government extort money from men to pay for it. That is not independent.

EDIT: I am part of no crazy religious sect. I think the real question is when were you made a eunuch? Since you clearly have no balls.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
And a man who gets a woman pregnant has exactly 0% control over what the woman does.
He has 100% control over whether or not she gets pregnant. But you want him to be able to impregnate women, have them be forced to undergo an invasive medical procedure, and have the men get off free.

You're a misogynist.

Men do not go around knocking women up against their will.
Actually, they do. Unless the word "rape" is not in your vocabulary?

But let's leave that aside for the moment.

And of course all of the most effective forms of reversible birth control are controlled by women.
Wrong. The most effective form of birth control is keeping your genitals in your pants.

You don't want men to take responsibility for their actions. You want them to be able to go around and screw like bunnies, and then force women to deal with either birth control or "disposing" of unwanted babies.

You're a misogynist.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,232
4,868
136
And the Supreme Court has ruled, and liberals agree 200%, that pregnancy does not mean the a child must be born. A child is only born if a woman CHOOSES to carry the fetus to term.

And the man clearly has less power in determining if a woman gets pregnant as all of the most effective forms of BC are controlled by the woman.
I figured it out. It's called vagina envy.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
He has 100% control over whether or not she gets pregnant. But you want him to be able to impregnate women, have them be forced to undergo an invasive medical procedure, and have the men get off free.

You're a misogynist.
Men do not just impregnate women. I would say you must have had an abstinence only sex-education, but even theyknow better than that :rolleyes:

And since when is swallowing a pill an "invasive medical procedure"? :confused:

Actually, they do. Unless the word "rape" is not in your vocabulary?

But let's leave that aside for the moment.
Sorry about not pointing out every little corner case.

EDIT: I also failed to deal with alien abduction. :p

Wrong. The most effective form of birth control is keeping your genitals in your pants.
That is not birth control. And according to liberals abstinence is unrealistic.

You don't want men to take responsibility for their actions. You want them to be able to go around and screw like bunnies, and then force women to deal with either birth control or "disposing" of unwanted babies.

You're a misogynist.
And how would you suggest we make men "dispose" of the unwanted babies?

I am open on how you think that would be possible?
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
A man and woman have equal opportunity to pay/not pay for child support once a child is born.
False

1.) A woman can abandon it at a hospital without the knowledge or consent of the man

2.) A woman has assumed custody of the child. Are you saying that once the child is born if he decided he wanted custody he would have a 50% chance of getting it?:D

EDIT: Lets say a woman gives birth. The mother and father have no real relationship with each other. Both want the baby. Who is the baby going home with?
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
And the Supreme Court has ruled, and liberals agree 200%, that pregnancy does not mean the a child must be born. A child is only born if a woman CHOOSES to carry the fetus to term.

And the man clearly has less power in determining if a woman gets pregnant as all of the most effective forms of BC are controlled by the woman.
And a child is also only born if a man CHOOSES to have sex with a woman.

A vasectomy is a pretty damn effective method of birth control. As well, he can choose whether or not to have sex with women who use appropriate birth control.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
And a child is also only born if a man CHOOSES to have sex with a woman.
Not true. Ever heard of a spermbank?

And again liberals have said for 40 years the having sex should not mean you have to be a parent.

And they have repeatedly said they expecting abstinence is crazy.

A vasectomy is a pretty damn effective method of birth control.
Okay, sorry, I meant reversible. I appear to have forgot that word this time.

As well, he can choose whether or not to have sex with women who use appropriate birth control.
You mean assuming they are not lying, or "forgetting".
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
False

1.) A woman can abandon it at a hospital without the knowledge or consent of the man

2.) A woman has assumed custody of the child. Are you saying that once the child is born if he decided he wanted custody he would have a 50% chance of getting it?:D
1.) If you want to pass a law saying that a woman must inform a man of a pregnancy, I'd be all for that.

2.) Whether or not a law is applied fairly does not determine whether the law itself is unfair. There are men who get custody of their kids. There are parents who have joint custody.

In any case, these are not wealth transfers to the custodial parent, but rather transfers to the children but spent by the custodial parent.

And your arguments for 'no child support' are meaningless if both parents agree that the child should be brought to term, which happens in many many cases (for example child support after divorce).
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Not true. Ever heard of a spermbank?

And again liberals have said for 40 years the having sex should not mean you have to be a parent.

And they have repeatedly said they expecting abstinence is crazy.
I'll concede that a man who donates sperm to a sperm bank shouldn't be forced to pay child support for any resulting baby (oh, but they aren't anyways).

I have never made the argument that sex should not mean you have to be a parent.

Okay, sorry, I meant reversible. I appear to have forgot that word this time.
Vasectomies can be reversed (though now always), and abortion can also cause sterility.

You mean assuming they are not lying, or "forgetting".
Don't have sex with people you can't trust?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
2.) Whether or not a law is applied fairly does not determine whether the law itself is unfair. There are men who get custody of their kids. There are parents who have joint custody.
A man and woman have equal opportunity to pay/not pay for child support once a child is born.
So its not an equal opportunity of paying child support after all huh.

And your arguments for 'no child support' are meaningless if both parents agree that the child should be brought to term, which happens in many many cases (for example child support after divorce).
I have no problem with a man CHOOSING to pay child support. Although child support after a divorce is not necessarily the best example of that given no-fault divorce laws.

And if a man is at-fault for a divorce he should be required to be responsible for child support.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
So its not an equal opportunity of paying child support after all huh.
The law, as written, provides for equal opportunity. If you do not believe judges are applying the law correctly then look to change that. Doesn't mean the law has to be scrapped.

I have no problem with a man CHOOSING to pay child support. Although child support after a divorce is not necessarily the best example of that given no-fault divorce laws.

And if a man is at-fault for a divorce he should be required to be responsible for child support.
And if the woman is at fault then men take custody and women pay them child support?

Since the children are never at fault, I don't see why either parent should be without responsibility.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Don't have sex with people you can't trust?
That would seem to apply equally well to women.

But then liberals would whine about controlling women's sexuality.

The law, as written, provides for equal opportunity. If you do not believe judges are applying the law correctly then look to change that. Doesn't mean the law has to be scrapped.
But what is the correct way to apply the law in the case that a Mother and Father both want custody of a new born baby. Assume both parents are equally fit. Who does the baby go home with?

And if the woman is at fault then men take custody and women pay them child support?

Since the children are never at fault, I don't see why either parent should be without responsibility.
That would make sense. Does not happen that way though.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
1.) If you want to pass a law saying that a woman must inform a man of a pregnancy, I'd be all for that.

2.) Whether or not a law is applied fairly does not determine whether the law itself is unfair. There are men who get custody of their kids. There are parents who have joint custody.

In any case, these are not wealth transfers to the custodial parent, but rather transfers to the children but spent by the custodial parent.

And your arguments for 'no child support' are meaningless if both parents agree that the child should be brought to term, which happens in many many cases (for example child support after divorce).
of course its a wealth transfer to the parent.

If the parent has to spend X on food for the kid. But instead the goverment pays X for the food, then geuss what, the parent is now X richer.

This liberal wealth transfer plan is just shear idiociy. If 9 months out of the year kids/parents can/have to prove they qualify for free food, why is it that in summer time that requirement goes away?

That statment doesn't take away from the fact that people that have kids should be held accouantable for their actions. Yet no liberal ever wants to punish bad behavior they agree with. More welfare babies = more votes.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
Nehalem 256 begins with an absurdity, that women who can't "afford" children shouldn't have them, simultaneously excusing men who father them from bearing any responsibility.

The biggest problem with that, beyond his blatant misogyny, is that America needs those children, and that we can afford them, if we're only slightly more generous than Scrooge or Fagin, if we accept that we are one people, one nation, with obligations to each other beyond the conceptualizations of right wing twits.

I say we need them because we already have economic problems from the demographic bulge of baby boomers, and economic problems from the massive shift of income to the tippy top.

Rich people don't fund SS, medicare, or pensions- working stiffs do in a collective fashion. If we want to be able to survive in old age, when we can't really work any more, if we want to have medical care, then we need to be able to depend on younger people to help with that, the same way that generations of americans have done before us. If we want tosell our homes where we raised our own children at a profit, we'll need younger people to want them, to afford them, and that won't happen if there are damned few younger people.

The US birth rate is barely above replacement rate, so forced abortion will deny the future the working people we need for continuity & prosperity. We're not like China- we are not overpopulated, and it would be stupid to adopt their methods for any ends other than that. They're already having huge problems supporting their elderly, and that burden won't decrease from having fewer people to do it.

I figure it would be entirely fitting for Nehalem 256 to get old, and for younger people to take the same kind of attitude towards him that he takes towards others. If you can't be entirely self sufficient at 90, or at any age, well, it's time to punch your ticket. Or just let you starve, freeze or otherwise perish. Getting old is just stupid, right?

His own desires would make that a lot more likely, because younger workers would have proportionately too many oldsters to care for comfortably, and his "ideas" would obviously have led them to believe that short sighted greed is a virtue.

Those who live by the sword shall perish by it is a broader concept than he realizes, because there are all kinds of swords. He's swinging one himself.

Don't like the Welfare State? It's easy to say when you think you'll be rich someday, but you probably won't, particularly not if current income trends continue. You'll more likely be busted, in debt, obsolete and the rest of the right-wing-o-sphere will say it's because you're stupid and that you deserve what you're getting, even as people who never really worked at all enjoy he fruits of ownership via unlimited inheritance.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
Child support laws are in the women favor though.

A woman could get pregnant, move away and never inform the man of the child, return 15 years later and get 15 years of back child support, likely over 100,000 dollars from the man. The man now has to pay a shit ton of money and never got to see his child.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
32,912
11,650
146
I believe I previously pointed that out as evidence my plans were reasonable.
Sensing a pattern here? Once again, I'm not reading through 500+ posts to find all of yours. Move to China, no more worries for you. Don't forget to send a post card!

It's not reasonable, unless you're a communist. Then all your "tell people what they can do with their bodies" talk seems fitting. Let's not forget all the money it will cost to actually enforce your ideas.
 

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,818
30
91
I like how we give rice away to starving poor countries. You guys like rice right? heres a few bags for ya. lol
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Child support laws are in the women favor though.

A woman could get pregnant, move away and never inform the man of the child, return 15 years later and get 15 years of back child support, likely over 100,000 dollars from the man. The man now has to pay a shit ton of money and never got to see his child.
Or lie about the paternity of the child. And then if the man finds out later he wont get paid back.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY