|
sassassin posted:The difference is that the woman can choose whether she's going to replace the window or not, while the man is stuck paying half the bill from whatever fancy contractor she decided to go with and he doesn't want to live in that house anyway. Jastiger posted:See sassasins response with the contractor. Im not saying men should be able to dodgr on month 7 of 9 as a convenience im talking they are both poor, young, and in no placw ro have a kid. Boy is like "omg plan B or abortion, this is terrible", girl is like " oh its mah little angel" and refuses. gently caress that. The boy was trying to do the moral and responsible thing and shouldnt be on the hook for the womans compounding bad decision. silence_kit posted:This is kind of a conservative/Republican thing to say, don't you think? Like, if you made this kind of argument in D&D about almost any other political subject, you'd get crucified. And then you'd get a thousand lectures about how everybody is actually a victim of society/circumstance, etc. . . silence_kit posted:I'm just pointing out that I suspect posters in this thread would not be giving these lectures about personal responsibility if an oppressed group were not the beneficiary of the policy. I suspect that the main reason for supporting these kinds of policies is not derived from a strong and consistently-held belief in personal responsibility. The main reason is that the policy props up an oppressed group of people.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Tiggum posted:The homeowner can choose whether or not to replace the window and what contractor to use, and yes, you still have to pay for it even though it's not your window. It doesn't matter if you think that it's a dumb place for a window and you wouldn't put a window there if it were your house, because it's not your house so your opinion doesn't matter. How do liabilities change here if the homeowner moved the "window" so that it would intersect with the flight of the man's "ball" repeatedly until the pane shot glass all over the interior? And did you see how it was dressed? It was practically asking to be broken.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
My PHUO: if you can't handle that you might get a woman pregnant, and she might want to keep it, don't have sex at all, or only have it with men. Seriously. Ideally two people will have a "what if the birth control fails?" conversation before boning and will be on the same page, but that doesn't always happen, in which case, you need to be prepared for and assume the worst, or else keep it in your pants. There are a whole lot of reasons a woman may not want or be able to get an abortion, and if you can't handle that, then cool, don't have sex. It's not like you have some right to "consequence free" sex (as if a pregnancy and child isn't a consequence to the woman too).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
'Women shouldn't have sex at all if they don't want kids.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I'm just pointing out that I suspect posters in this thread would not be giving these lectures about personal responsibility if an oppressed group were not the beneficiary of the policy. I suspect that the main reason for supporting these kinds of policies is not derived from a strong and consistently-held belief in personal responsibility. The main reason is that the policy props up an oppressed group of people. There's two issues bouncing about in this thread that, while certainly overlapping in many cases, can be important to keep distinct for the purposes of proposing policy: teenage (minor) pregnancy and child support. For starters, minors are not full citizens. Our populace and law frameworks already broadly acknowledge that minors cannot be held to personally account for many categories of actions. It is reasonable to assume minors cannot independently make an informed decision concerning family planning, ie whether or not to have sex, how to weigh risk vs cost in contraceptive methods, and whether to carry children to term. Does anyone here disagree with this fact as a basis for further conversation? There are a lot of further questions I want to ask that piggyback off that one, like "are there significant legal differences between family planning and breaking a window?" This conversion needs to be grounded in law. Metaphors need to be scoped with reasonable limits. My PHUO is that this is a topic that has been beaten to death many times before, but it also rarely moves beyond just lazily throwing high-level ideals at each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
sassassin posted:'Women shouldn't have sex at all if they don't want kids.' No, more like "women have autonomy over their own bodies, men do not have the right to decide what a women does or does not do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy due to it not being his body, and if a hypothetical man cannot deal with this perceived injustice, he should not have sex with women where pregnancy is a potential outcome".
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:No, more like "women have autonomy over their own bodies, men do not have the right to decide what a women does or does not do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy due to it not being his body, and if a hypothetical man cannot deal with this perceived injustice, he should not have sex with women where pregnancy is a potential outcome". I agree, and no one in this thread has questioned a woman's right to carry a child to term. Men do not have the right to dictate what a woman does in those circumstances. The discussion is over court-mandated financial obligations to that mother and child, should one arise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Maybe we just need to create a Sex Haver License so only people who are personally+financially capable/willing to raise any child resulting from the sex are legally allowed to gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
lol if a man doesn't have a signed contract before sex stating both that the sex is consensual and he takes no responsibility for a child. It's called CYA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
sassassin posted:How do liabilities change here if the homeowner moved the "window" so that it would intersect with the flight of the man's "ball" repeatedly until the pane shot glass all over the interior? Well to be fair and non flippant it WAS asking to be broken. It participated in its own breaking. Refusing to fix itself seems hosed up to blame the ball when they were both involved and forcimg the ball to pay for 18 years worth of repairs. I think women should have total autonomy. Want to keep the kid, great. That should be on her though and no one else if that decision is made early enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Maybe we just need to create a Sex Haver License so only people who are personally+financially capable/willing to raise any child resulting from the sex are legally allowed to gently caress. You mean a marriage licence? That sounds awful. Free Love and let the state provide. sassassin has a new favorite as of 15:54 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
I actually used to support the concept of "financial abortions". I read this article (that I now can't find) that changed my mind. Since I can't find it, from memory, I think the main things that changed my mind were: 1. Child support isn't about the woman, it's about the child that the man had an equal part in making. It isn't a punishment, it's a consequence. 2. In practice, it's very hard to legislate for (e.g. say you can "opt out" at any point before the second trimester. There are significant difficulties with determining the exact day of conception and when exactly the second trimester is, so good luck with finding a date. What if the woman only tells the man on the last day? What if the woman doesn't realise she's pregnant until after the opt-out point? What if the man waits until the second last day to financially abort? The pregnant woman has come a third of the way along with one plan, only for it to be significantly altered, which will have huge implications for her actions and choices. This is magnified hugely for women in abusive relationships, or where abortion is strictly limited, highly stigmatised or outright illegal). 3. Abortion and "financial abortion" are not completely analogous. One is about bodily autonomy, the other is about financial and personal responsibilities. 4. It's already pretty easy in practise for men to get out if child support responsibilities (although this will vary based on location), so why make it easier? Like I say, I used to be on board with it, so I do get the arguments for it, but the article (which I haven't done full justice to) did a great job of showing how vulnerable such a system would be to abuse, and how impractical it would be in practice, and how much it could be used against women in vulnerable positions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
I do believe the solution was already provided on the previous page. “Oh, how superior is the Eye of Horus to the Mouth of Isis!” – Aleister Crowley
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Free Love and let the state provide. Tiggum posted:If you're talking about my ideal, perfect society then there would be no need for child support because every child would be provided for by the state. You guys sure have an awful lot of faith in the government, under the circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
They clearly are advocating for a violent socialist overthrow of the Trumpenreich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:It isn't a punishment, it's a consequence. Semantics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Just FYI for the people saying "just don't have sex" abstinence has a pretty piss poor record, not rooting for either side but that's basically what's being advocated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Teaching abstinence is literally the worst kind of "sex ed". Did the people who advocate for that forget their own teenage years?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that this is going to be ignored with the other conversation going on, but Dairy Queen has some of the best fast food fries and burgers out there. There's also nothing wrong with not washing your hands after you pee, assuming you didn't cover them on piss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I actually used to support the concept of "financial abortions". I read this article (that I now can't find) that changed my mind. Since I can't find it, from memory, I think the main things that changed my mind were: 1. Child support isn't about the woman, it's about the child that the man had an equal part in making. It isn't a punishment, it's a consequence. 2. In practice, it's very hard to legislate for (e.g. say you can "opt out" at any point before the second trimester. There are significant difficulties with determining the exact day of conception and when exactly the second trimester is, so good luck with finding a date. What if the woman only tells the man on the last day? What if the woman doesn't realise she's pregnant until after the opt-out point? What if the man waits until the second last day to financially abort? The pregnant woman has come a third of the way along with one plan, only for it to be significantly altered, which will have huge implications for her actions and choices. This is magnified hugely for women in abusive relationships, or where abortion is strictly limited, highly stigmatised or outright illegal). 3. Abortion and "financial abortion" are not completely analogous. One is about bodily autonomy, the other is about financial and personal responsibilities. 4. It's already pretty easy in practise for men to get out if child support responsibilities (although this will vary based on location), so why make it easier? So where does mom get child support if dad is dead? A dad can't be a dead beat dad if he's just a plain dead one. What if you have...oh, I don't know a lesbian couple who both got artificially inseminated so they could have children then fell on hard times?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:So where does mom get child support if dad is dead? A dad can't be a dead beat dad if he's just a plain dead one. Social Security survivor benefits. And I doubt a couple who could afford IVF would suddenly go dirt poor, but again, that's what a good welfare system is for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
It seems even the people that disagree with my idea of "financial abortion" only disagree because of the lack od safety net. Which is something i advocate. It seems nearly every issue yall are on the Jastiger train about, provided we have a strong democratic socialist government system. Jastiger for prez 2020
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:It seems even the people that disagree with my idea of "financial abortion" only disagree because of the lack od safety net. Which is something i advocate. Glad you got your word order right there. Democratic socialism's got my vote, social-democracy can gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
all political parties are garbage, just like the people that support those parties
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:all political parties are garbage, just like the people that support those parties Correct, full communism now, ban all parties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:all political parties are garbage, just like the people that support those parties Humans invented politics. Humans are garbage. Hmm...checks out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Semantics. I disagree, but fair enough. As to the other points, like practical difficulties? Jastiger posted:It seems even the people that disagree with my idea of "financial abortion" only disagree because of the lack od safety net. Which is something i advocate. I'm totally on board with stronger social security, but genuine question, can you think of a system that would work and not be able to be exploited by lovely men? As I said, there are heaps of problems with going just by trimester or some arbitrary date. Granted, lovely people can exploit any system, but I don't see the value in creating a system so obviously open to exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I'm totally on board with stronger social security, but genuine question, can you think of a system that would work and not be able to be exploited by lovely men? As I said, there are heaps of problems with going just by trimester or some arbitrary date. Granted, lovely people can exploit any system, but I don't see the value in creating a system so obviously open to exploitation. Minimum income and free college education for everybody. You get extra if you have custody of children. Then it just plain doesn't matter if dad decides to abdicate his responsibilities to a child because the kid gets taken care of anyway. Can't easily exploit that system; if everybody gets $X + $Y*children every year how in the hell can you game it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Leavemywife posted:I'm pretty sure that this is going to be ignored with the other conversation going on, but Dairy Queen has some of the best fast food fries and burgers out there. Agreed and, I guess, agreed. There really is such a thing as gripless aim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Minimum income and free college education for everybody. You get extra if you have custody of children. Then it just plain doesn't matter if dad decides to abdicate his responsibilities to a child because the kid gets taken care of anyway. Can't easily exploit that system; if everybody gets $X + $Y*children every year how in the hell can you game it? I mean exploit the system as in "exploit the concept of financial abortion", such as for women in abusive relationships ("do X or else I'll terminate all rights and you'll be on your own", etc., then they peace out on the last day anyway), or just generally ("don't worry, we're in it together, I'll be with you the whole way" then leaves on the last day). This is where the practicalities of what that "last day" is matter. Too late in the pregnancy and abortion is a whole different ballgame (might not be legal, there will be different emotional considerations compares to early on, etc.). Too early and the woman might not even know she's pregnant. That's not even getting into what happens if it becomes a point of contention when/if he was told she was pregnant, or what you do it he tells her one intention and tells other people something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:all political parties are garbage, just like the people that support those parties My man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I disagree, but fair enough. As to the other points, like practical difficulties? As noted by another poster, it wouldnt mstter in a good system because the child is still being taken care of with strong safety nets. The Free Rider problem is always going to exist, but that doesnt mean we should perpetuate crab in the bucket style southern American judicial proceedings. Its not about making sure every last person is towing the line, its about what builds a better society. It also provides more autonomy ans freedom for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I mean exploit the system as in "exploit the concept of financial abortion", such as for women in abusive relationships ("do X or else I'll terminate all rights and you'll be on your own", etc., then they peace out on the last day anyway), or just generally ("don't worry, we're in it together, I'll be with you the whole way" then leaves on the last day). This is where the practicalities of what that "last day" is matter. Too late in the pregnancy and abortion is a whole different ballgame (might not be legal, there will be different emotional considerations compares to early on, etc.). Too early and the woman might not even know she's pregnant. A minimum income for everybody would mean that "do X or I'll cut you off" just plain doesn't matter. If everybody is guaranteed a minimum standard of living, no questions asked, then a person in an abusive relationship can leave without worrying about financial ties. Of course if a person was there because said abuser was wealthy that changes things. What you're falling into however is "the thing you are suggesting is not perfect. Therefore it is bad." No system is ever perfect; child support is not perfect either for reasons I pointed out. However, guaranteed minimum income is far better than what you're suggesting. Every system is going to get gamed in some way, shape, or form no matter which way you slice it. That's a fact of life. The thing of it is though is that you have to look at the amount of welfare fraud that currently happens. It's so tiny it can be ignored. Like really; look at the numbers. The cost is negligible when you compare the cost of food stamps to the cost of food stamp fraud. I'm also going to point out that American society is very punitive and wants to punish. Child support payments can sometimes be so absolutely onerous that they lead to financial ruin. It varies by case and by area but some of those dead beat dads you hear about had something happen like they lost their job but were told they couldn't have their payments adjusted for a year. How in the hell can you possibly pay that? Chances are the answer is "you don't." However it just plain feels better to turn said dad into one of those people, ignore every concern they have, and shackle them with the payments and debt. A strong social safety net, good social programs, and especially a guaranteed minimum income really do render your concerns moot. American society looks for somebody to blame; in the case of children living in poverty it's "blame dad." Instead of doing something to actually loving fix the problem we just go "well the fathers should should take responsibility. If they won't we'll force them to." While that is in fact what happens in some situation that does not describe every situation. ToxicSlurpee has a new favorite as of 02:40 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
walrusman posted:You guys sure have an awful lot of faith in the government, under the circumstances. Tarantula posted:Just FYI for the people saying "just don't have sex" abstinence has a pretty piss poor record, not rooting for either side but that's basically what's being advocated.  Leavemywife posted:There's also nothing wrong with not washing your hands after you pee, assuming you didn't cover them on piss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Abstinence-only education has a piss-poor record. Actual abstinence has a 100% successful record. No it doesn't. Rape babies are a thing that exists. You're also assuming that people can be abstinent. Humans...uh...well we are extraordinarily bad at that. We need to gently caress. Not getting enough intimacy can actually kill a person. I'm not making that up. Sexual frustration puts a person at increased risk of depression, anxiety, and other mental problems as does social isolation. Sex is for more than just procreation when it comes to humanity. There's a social side to it and the intimacy as well. People crave it. You might as well tell them to quit being hungry. The social isolation part of it is worse than the sexual frustration side of it but seriously; not getting laid can do very, very bad things to people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Actual abstinence has a 100% successful record.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:No it doesn't. Rape babies are a thing that exists. You're also assuming that people can be abstinent. Humans...uh...well we are extraordinarily bad at that. We need to gently caress. Not getting enough intimacy can actually kill a person. Yeah, they post a lot of deranged poo poo like this from the Incels over on Reddit in the IoSM thread. It's hilariously awful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:No it doesn't. Rape babies are a thing that exists. You're also assuming that people can be abstinent. Humans...uh...well we are extraordinarily bad at that. We need to gently caress. Not getting enough intimacy can actually kill a person. What of celibate monks/nuns?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
http://www.apa.org/research/action/sexuality.aspx Sex is good for human well-being.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Sic Semper Goon posted:What of celibate monks/nuns? what percentage do you think actually stay celibate and what percentage of those who do stay sane? not saying no one can do it and masturbation probably serves as a low rent option to a degree too
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 03:20
|
|
