Welcome to Gaia! ::

Riviera de la Mancha

Not under your notion.

If paternity fraud continues with each payment made and did not stop the moment when the judge, under a falsehood, awarded the judgement, then theft continues each month, each day, each second, the thief continues to have possession of the item. For continued profits from stolen goods is a continuation of the theft itself. Once the judgement is rendered, if we buy your new argument, the theft has stopped, because, by law, its no longer theft. Its a court ordered payment system which the law recognizes as legitimate.

No matter how you slice it brah, the blade swings both ways. Either you have a problem in general with any and all statutes of limitations, or you don't. They are all premised on the same notion- at some point, you have to cut off liability. If the victim, in this case the wronged father, doesn't want to bring an action or contest it in any way, then that's his bag.

Yes, but profits made from stolen goods, even if continual, are not continual transfers of wealth from the victim to the thief. There is only the initial theft that violated the victim. Sure, the victim could have possibly used the stolen good to make profit himself, but the fact that the thief is using it to profit no longer affects the victim. The victim would be in the same situation whether or not the thief used the stolen goods to profit.

This is clearly not the case with paternity fraud. Whether the mother continues to profit of the crime makes every difference in the world to the man, because he is the one from whom she is directly profiting. And like you said, statutes of limitations are designed to cut off liability after a certain point. The mother should therefore be free from risk after a certain number of years. That's wherein the statutes of limitations ought to lie. It should not extend to making the victim liable to her. That's why I stated that after the statute of limitations, the mother should owe back the money, but she also ought not to be able to continue to profit from the crime.

Quote:

Much stronger in that it at least begins to take on the veneer of a organized and focused movement or war. When you have a group and noted leaders expose a position, in unison, or as a recognized platform, it looks alot more like an agenda than some dudes independently and without concert raping some guys in jail. That prison rape exists seems at this point to be your only 'evidence' or a war on men.

That's silly. That's like saying the Democrats are waging a "war on income" because they favor higher taxes than the Republicans.

No, my primary evidence is the widespread indifference to it. I have a hard time believing people would be so indifferent to rampant female-on-female rape. That male rape is prevalent isn't itself isn't evidence of a war on men, the indifference to it is where the evidence lies.

Quote:

... Yeah brah, there's this thing called a dictionary. You might want to look at it.

To what are you referring?

Quote:
It is a logical absurdity to say something is both a two way street and self-imposed. That's like alleging some shape is both a sphere and a square; it just logically can't happen.

No, it's not. Pregnancy is a two-way street in that it requires mutual action between two people. It is self-imposed in that it is voluntarily endured. Something need not be done alone to be self-imposed; the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

"two-way street - an arrangement or a situation involving reciprocal obligation or mutual action"
"self-imposed - voluntarily assumed or endured"
I don't understand the confusion.

Quote:

Pregnancy is, from sheer biology, a two-way process.

Ok, I take it you aren't a biology major.


Quote:
Unless of course you are about to argue that the female species can asexually reproduce.

If you are admitting to have a serious biological discussion, please don't refer to "the female species".
Quote:

Or take a Republican senator's position and argue that the female body has "ways of shutting that whole thing down" if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant. Either way, I can't wait for the show.

Yeah, it should be obvious that I argue for neither of these two things.


But what about artificial insemination? This is clearly not a two-way street, as only one party is involved, to the extent that we need here concern ourselves. You seem to think that any act done in concert can't be self-imposed. But there is no denying that a woman artificially-inseminated is pregnant (obviously assuming it takes), and it is clearly self-imposed by any definition of the word. So pregnancy can be self-imposed.
I would suggest if you're trying to be productive it would be best for you to seek compromise.
Knobist's avatar

Hilarious Prophet

I am above this.

People are far too interested in the basic gender identification mechanisms.
chainmailleman's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

8,550 Points
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Brandisher 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
Jacque De Molay
I am above this.

People are far too interested in the basic gender identification mechanisms.


HAHAHAHA

You crack me up homie
Knobist's avatar

Hilarious Prophet

chainmailleman
Jacque De Molay
I am above this.

People are far too interested in the basic gender identification mechanisms.


HAHAHAHA

You crack me up homie
I'm serious about this. I've seen too many narcissistic girls and boys(mostly girls) try to live up to some slick marketing campaign and that is why I don't care. If I were to pull out a chair for a woman to sit down I'd get yelled at for being sexist. Why waste your time trying to please people like that?
chainmailleman's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

8,550 Points
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Brandisher 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
Jacque De Molay
chainmailleman
Jacque De Molay
I am above this.

People are far too interested in the basic gender identification mechanisms.


HAHAHAHA

You crack me up homie
I'm serious about this. I've seen too many narcissistic girls and boys(mostly girls) try to live up to some slick marketing campaign and that is why I don't care. If I were to pull out a chair for a woman to sit down I'd get yelled at for being sexist. Why waste your time trying to please people like that?


As is why the way I am......
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Riviera de la Mancha

Not under your notion.

If paternity fraud continues with each payment made and did not stop the moment when the judge, under a falsehood, awarded the judgement, then theft continues each month, each day, each second, the thief continues to have possession of the item. For continued profits from stolen goods is a continuation of the theft itself. Once the judgement is rendered, if we buy your new argument, the theft has stopped, because, by law, its no longer theft. Its a court ordered payment system which the law recognizes as legitimate.

No matter how you slice it brah, the blade swings both ways. Either you have a problem in general with any and all statutes of limitations, or you don't. They are all premised on the same notion- at some point, you have to cut off liability. If the victim, in this case the wronged father, doesn't want to bring an action or contest it in any way, then that's his bag.

Yes, but profits made from stolen goods, even if continual, are not continual transfers of wealth from the victim to the thief. There is only the initial theft that violated the victim. Sure, the victim could have possibly used the stolen good to make profit himself, but the fact that the thief is using it to profit no longer affects the victim. The victim would be in the same situation whether or not the thief used the stolen goods to profit.

This is clearly not the case with paternity fraud. Whether the mother continues to profit of the crime makes every difference in the world to the man, because he is the one from whom she is directly profiting. And like you said, statutes of limitations are designed to cut off liability after a certain point. The mother should therefore be free from risk after a certain number of years. That's wherein the statutes of limitations ought to lie. It should not extend to making the victim liable to her. That's why I stated that after the statute of limitations, the mother should owe back the money, but she also ought not to be able to continue to profit from the crime.

Quote:

Much stronger in that it at least begins to take on the veneer of a organized and focused movement or war. When you have a group and noted leaders expose a position, in unison, or as a recognized platform, it looks alot more like an agenda than some dudes independently and without concert raping some guys in jail. That prison rape exists seems at this point to be your only 'evidence' or a war on men.

That's silly. That's like saying the Democrats are waging a "war on income" because they favor higher taxes than the Republicans.

No, my primary evidence is the widespread indifference to it. I have a hard time believing people would be so indifferent to rampant female-on-female rape. That male rape is prevalent isn't itself isn't evidence of a war on men, the indifference to it is where the evidence lies.

Quote:

... Yeah brah, there's this thing called a dictionary. You might want to look at it.

To what are you referring?

Quote:
It is a logical absurdity to say something is both a two way street and self-imposed. That's like alleging some shape is both a sphere and a square; it just logically can't happen.

No, it's not. Pregnancy is a two-way street in that it requires mutual action between two people. It is self-imposed in that it is voluntarily endured. Something need not be done alone to be self-imposed; the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

"two-way street - an arrangement or a situation involving reciprocal obligation or mutual action"
"self-imposed - voluntarily assumed or endured"
I don't understand the confusion.

Quote:

Pregnancy is, from sheer biology, a two-way process.

Ok, I take it you aren't a biology major.


Quote:
Unless of course you are about to argue that the female species can asexually reproduce.

If you are admitting to have a serious biological discussion, please don't refer to "the female species".
Quote:

Or take a Republican senator's position and argue that the female body has "ways of shutting that whole thing down" if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant. Either way, I can't wait for the show.

Yeah, it should be obvious that I argue for neither of these two things.


But what about artificial insemination? This is clearly not a two-way street, as only one party is involved, to the extent that we need here concern ourselves. You seem to think that any act done in concert can't be self-imposed. But there is no denying that a woman artificially-inseminated is pregnant (obviously assuming it takes), and it is clearly self-imposed by any definition of the word. So pregnancy can be self-imposed.

If they continue to reap the benefit and enjoyment I would otherwise have had they not stolen my property, then yes, quite literally there are continuous transactions of benefits away from me to the thief. Like I said, you can't straddle the line with your various statements; you wither dislike all statutes of limitations, or like them all.

And yes, it is silly to think that the democrats are having a war on income. Its why I said it gives it the veneer. Or, do you not know what the word 'veneer' means? My point is that a few dudes raping does not a war make. Some major party spokespersons and official party documentation however starts to at least give the image.

I think people in general are indifferent to prison rape, whether its guys or chicks, because thats the criminals getting what they deserve, as the common notion posits. If that is your best evidence, then you need to re-work your position.

*Sigh* Yeah, you were not awake at the birds and the bees talk...
Riviera de la Mancha

If they continue to reap the benefit and enjoyment I would otherwise have had they not stolen my property, then yes, quite literally there are continuous transactions of benefits away from me to the thief. Like I said, you can't straddle the line with your various statements; you wither dislike all statutes of limitations, or like them all.
Once your car is stolen, whether they continue to benefit from it or not matters not to you. Sure, you might be angry, but that is not a quantifiable cost, and removing the costs lies in you. If someone stole a car from you 15 years ago, that you cannot try them is a justified instance of a statute of limitations. If however, they stole the car 15 years ago and continue to get it serviced from an account you fund, you ought to be entitled to no longer pay for the services. This is a more accurate comparison of circumstances.
To compare the nebulous concept of continued transactions of value in the case of the car thief to paternity fraud as you do is absurd. In the case of the car thief, the continued transactions are merely unavoidable consequences of when the crime was first committed. Paying the mother in the case of paternity fraud is government-enforced theft. You can argue that the statute of limitations applies to a car she stole (by using the fraudulently-acquired funds), and to any future benefits the car confirms. I am ok with this, as she is no longer stealing from him after the discovery of the crime. It is quite a leap of bad faith to go from accepting that to accepting the known and continual active theft that is child support in the case of paternity fraud.

Quote:

And yes, it is silly to think that the democrats are having a war on income. Its why I said it gives it the veneer. Or, do you not know what the word 'veneer' means? My point is that a few dudes raping does not a war make. Some major party spokespersons and official party documentation however starts to at least give the image.

Don't patronize me. I am smarter than you. So the ineffectual ramblings of a few old, albeit powerful, men give the image of a "war on women?" Who cares? If, as you said, it just gives the image of a war on women, then anyone who complains of a genuine war on women (based on those examples) is a liar.

Quote:

I think people in general are indifferent to prison rape, whether its guys or chicks, because thats the criminals getting what they deserve, as the common notion posits. If that is your best evidence, then you need to re-work your position.

It may be because it is rare compared to man-on-woman rape outside of prison, but it my experience even the rape of non-criminal men is taken much more lightly than the rape of women. For example, some movies have used male rape as a punchline; none that features a woman in such a light comes to mind.

Quote:

*Sigh* Yeah, you were not awake at the birds and the bees talk...

Ok, so you're either stupid, or a liar? Which is it?
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Riviera de la Mancha

If they continue to reap the benefit and enjoyment I would otherwise have had they not stolen my property, then yes, quite literally there are continuous transactions of benefits away from me to the thief. Like I said, you can't straddle the line with your various statements; you wither dislike all statutes of limitations, or like them all.
Once your car is stolen, whether they continue to benefit from it or not matters not to you. Sure, you might be angry, but that is not a quantifiable cost, and removing the costs lies in you. If someone stole a car from you 15 years ago, that you cannot try them is a justified instance of a statute of limitations. If however, they stole the car 15 years ago and continue to get it serviced from an account you fund, you ought to be entitled to no longer pay for the services. This is a more accurate comparison of circumstances.
To compare the nebulous concept of continued transactions of value in the case of the car thief to paternity fraud as you do is absurd. In the case of the car thief, the continued transactions are merely unavoidable consequences of when the crime was first committed. Paying the mother in the case of paternity fraud is government-enforced theft. You can argue that the statute of limitations applies to a car she stole (by using the fraudulently-acquired funds), and to any future benefits the car confirms. I am ok with this, as she is no longer stealing from him after the discovery of the crime. It is quite a leap of bad faith to go from accepting that to accepting the known and continual active theft that is child support in the case of paternity fraud.

Quote:

And yes, it is silly to think that the democrats are having a war on income. Its why I said it gives it the veneer. Or, do you not know what the word 'veneer' means? My point is that a few dudes raping does not a war make. Some major party spokespersons and official party documentation however starts to at least give the image.

Don't patronize me. I am smarter than you. So the ineffectual ramblings of a few old, albeit powerful, men give the image of a "war on women?" Who cares? If, as you said, it just gives the image of a war on women, then anyone who complains of a genuine war on women (based on those examples) is a liar.

Quote:

I think people in general are indifferent to prison rape, whether its guys or chicks, because thats the criminals getting what they deserve, as the common notion posits. If that is your best evidence, then you need to re-work your position.

It may be because it is rare compared to man-on-woman rape outside of prison, but it my experience even the rape of non-criminal men is taken much more lightly than the rape of women. For example, some movies have used male rape as a punchline; none that features a woman in such a light comes to mind.

Quote:

*Sigh* Yeah, you were not awake at the birds and the bees talk...

Ok, so you're either stupid, or a liar? Which is it?

People continuing to profit or otherwise take benefits from my stolen property certainly does matter to me, both in terms of how I am going to bring my action to get it back, the damages the courts will assess, and even, thanks to the idea of adverse possession, even if I will ever, if at all, get it back.

And the losses are certainly quantifiable to me. For example, if someone steals my car, that is my only means of transportation to get to and from work. Without it, I am missing work until I find some other way, have to pay for other means of transportation, etc. All of that has a price tag to it. Courts, in assessing damages, do it all the time. And if the idea is I can eventually make adjustments to my theft and purchase a new car or something (an additional added expense), then the same can be said of ill-gotten child support. Eventually, you just budget for that money to be taken out of your account.

You are either willfully limiting your scope or just plain ignorant at this point. Squirm as much as you want, the position is the same; either you take a general problem with all statutes of limitations, or none of them.

The issue was one you raised; that of comparing the relative strengths in your notion of a 'war on men' and a 'war on women'. I am saying that, if we are going to do such a thing, the clear winner is the idea of a war on women. Neither are accurate in my opinion (As they both convey this idea of serious planning, which I think is completely absent), but if I am going to pick the best of two fat kids on the kickball field, I am going with the one that at least has legs.

Are you kidding? I have seen literally TONS of rape jokes for chicks. At this point your position has been reduced to your subjective experiences with humor. Really? If you are going to hang your hat on that, be my guest...

I will take "neither" for 1000 Johnny. DINGDINGDING!!! Let me tell you what I won!!!...

What you can't, or won't (my bet's on the latter), get is that the human species can't asexually reproduce. See, to have a baby, you need a viable sperm and egg. Women only produce eggs. Therefore, the actual act of pregnancy (i.e. the sperm fertilizing the egg), is objectively a two-way street. It cannot be said to be 'self-imposed' as a general description of the process, as there are things like rape, accidental pregnancy, etc. The only definitive statement is that, if a female of the human species is pregnant, it requires male human sperm, i.e. a two way street.

Write it all down now. There will be a test tomorrow. wink
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Tanaie's avatar

Distinct Dabbler

5,050 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Conversationalist 100
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Tanaie

What society has built is something extremely unfortunate.
Women are still extremely sexualized, and are pretty much told from a young age that being a women is in fact, inferior to being a man. It's not as blunt as that, but it's certainly something were raised to believe.
No they aren't.


I think it's great that you don't think so, because then that means you don't share that view.
But I'm afraid I would have to strongly disagree with you. Well, not just disagree with you, but tell you that you are wrong.

Have you really analyzed ads? Just look at a beer commercial for crying out loud. x_x;

Or even the news, where for some stupid reason they keep talking about Hilary Clinton's appearance.

Another example...Male nurses, or stay home dads. It's great that they are becoming more common place, but there is still this stigma around it. "Why would a man be doing a womans job?" That somehow makes him less then a man.

And I've also felt it first had, in broad daylight in the middle of a freaking park a man came up to me and asked to have sex with me. I think I can safety say that he only saw me for my body, and nothing else.

I'm certainly not saying that all men believe this, but it's definitely something that I sense.

Quote:
Quote:

It's only now, at 20 years old do I realize how horribly wrong, and even disgusting that is.
It certainly wasn't my parents who taught me this, but rather the media and society.

Baloney. Give me an example of pro-male bias in the media. And society is just a collection of people. To the extent that society taught you that, it is only because that is how people feel. Who are you to tell them they are wrong?


Hrm...Pro-male bias. Well, it's not like society is straight up saying "WOOHOOO MEN ARE BETTER THEN FEEEMALES"
But the problem is that everything is so gender specific.
Men are taught at a young age through toys, that you've gotta save the day! Build stuff! Kill stuff! Become a fire fighter! Mayor of the city! a police officer!

All these things with ...Power.

While on the other hand, girls are given hair salon kits, cooking, cleaning, fashion, and all these other stereotypical "girlie" things. These aren't bad!
But it creates this environment where girls are more encouraged to do this type of thing.

Where boys are more encouraged to do the other.

I'm not even sure why this is, but boys are strongly discouraged from playing with girl toys. Because for some reason that's beneath them.

I can't currently give you a direct Pro-male bias, but from what I already said. There is this stigma that boys should never do things that are typically done by a women.

Quote:
Quote:

If a women dresses like a man, nobody really gives a damn.

Not really true; she is usually called a dyke.


True. But at the same time, it is no where near the same level as when a man dresses like a girl. Besides, it's pretty common place for a women to wear "boyish" clothes and not be called such a thing. (Ex. Jeans, hoodie, baseball cap.)
If a woman dressed as a "man" walked on the subway, I'm sure a few people might think it strange, but not many people would care. Maybe some would scoff.

On the other hand, if a man walked onto a subway wearing "female" clothing he would gather a LOT more attention. Because it's a LOT more taboo.

Quote:
Quote:

But if a man dresses like a women, everybody flips s**t about it. It's seen as degrading. Which is strong proof on how our culture views women.

Women are so self-absorbed. A man dresses like a women and is shunned, but women, not the man, are still somehow the victim. The real reason man are shunned for dressing like women? It makes them look unmanly, and therefore physically weak. Physically weak men are less able to defend the group, which biologically is man's prime directive. To the extent that women who dress manly are less looked down upon, it is because dressing manly might be slightly less attractive, but it isn't an indication of failure to bear children.


*Bangs head against desk*
"Woman are self absorbed" That's a very broad statement your making there.

In any case, I didn't say that men weren't the victims, both genders are here.
I think your totally missing my point.

I am just going to put this out there, gender does not exist. The sex of a person exists, but gender is a social construct.
The expectations of a woman, and a man, is something that we as a society has created.
This is true is because the expectations of a man and woman have greatly changed from 500 years ago. Heck, even different countries in our world today have slightly different constructs of the gender.

So I do not believe it is a "man's prime directive" to look physically stronger. That is something that our society believes a man SHOULD be, which is why he is shamed for doing something other then what his gender is supposed to be doing.

So the problem with this, is that its telling men that they HAVE TO BE THIS WAY, to be a REAL man. The reason this is also offensive to women, is because its supports the idea that wearing or doing something that a women does is somehow wrong, or degrading.

Quote:
Quote:

And yet, men don't have an easy time either.
Men are taught that if they are to be TRUE men, they must be powerful, emotionless, intelligent, in control, and even violent.
This super machoness hurts everyone, men and women.

It can be bad, but it can also be very good.


Uuuuuuuuuuuuuhh. Maybe.
Intelligence, is a very good trait to have, to be able to have things under control is good as well.

But I would say violence, power, and emotionless are pretty freaking terrible.
Violence in video games can be pretty entertaining. But when its applied to real life, and real lives are both men and women are hurt and killed? Not so good.

Quote:
Quote:

If a man doesn't act this way, then he's seen as less then a man, a women.
And don't even get me started about how we treat male rape victims.
Why do we always sweep that under the rug? UGH.

I agree with you there.


;3 Cool.

Quote:
Quote:

I knew a kid in elementary school who was called "chicken legs" because he was very thin. Can you believe that? In elementary school? 11 year old boys can hardly be masculine, so why is this pressure so forced on boys? Even at that age?! It pisses me off.

This society we live in is so...Sad. Such a hyper sexual and violent place we live.
It's biological, not cultural.


Once again, I would argue that it is in fact, not biological. It is in fact cultural.

How can you explain men who want to get a sex change? If it is biological how can this even cross any ones mind? What about homosexuals? Asexuals? Etc, etc, etc.
They all do not fit into our supposed biological nature.

Although you are a man, and know more about the ways of men then I do.
You cannot speak for every man of the world. If a man can choose to not to look, or be physically strong, how can it be biological?
Essandee's avatar

6,100 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Forum Junior 100
  • Conversationalist 100
GunsmithKitten
Essandee
I agree with the OP. America is so bent to the side of women equality, that I suspect there currently is inequality that biases favorably to women.


If it is, it's pretty damn ineffective. We're still a society, remember, where saying someone "acts like a man" is a compliment, while "acting like a girl" is an insult.


When a teacher has an affair with a student, who gets the harsher punishment by law? A male teacher or a female teacher?

When Elizabeth Smart was 14, and she was kidnapped, the news was going on and on about how she was only a 14-year old girl.

When Lionel Tate was 14, he accidentally killed his cousin when they were playing wrestling moves. He got tried for murder in criminal court as an adult.

Why are girls protected like children at 14, and men are tried as adults at the same age?

The vast amount of courts rule that in the best interest of the child, the primary guardianship should be to the mother not the father. Why are women assumed to be better parents?

Vernacular takes a while to change, but attitudes on how we treat genders in society today are not biased towards men.
Gardening_with_Rave_Music's avatar

Versatile Shapeshifter

11,000 Points
  • Big Tipper 100
  • Millionaire 200
  • Senpai's Notice 100
Its because of gender differences and stereotypes and biases. Just because men are not being treated equally to women doesnt mean that women are not being treated unequally also.

So sure, older people have more of these 1950s mindsets on gender roles. Its obvious, or should be.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Essandee


When a teacher has an affair with a student, who gets the harsher punishment by law? A male teacher or a female teacher?


As bullshit as it is, it's still not even much of a benefit. Especially since said female teacher has to be attractive as well.

Quote:
When Elizabeth Smart was 14, and she was kidnapped, the news was going on and on about how she was only a 14-year old girl.

When Lionel Tate was 14, he accidentally killed his cousin when they were playing wrestling moves. He got tried for murder in criminal court as an adult.

Why are girls protected like children at 14, and men are tried as adults at the same age?


First, they aren't always tried as adults. For second, you act like girls don't get tried as adults as well. Lisa Michelle Lambert, Tabitha Buck were all teens but tried as adults in the killing of Laurie Show.


Quote:
The vast amount of courts rule that in the best interest of the child, the primary guardianship should be to the mother not the father. Why are women assumed to be better parents?


Valid point and also BS, but that's one of the few prices you pay for hammering down the gender role that women are baby making machines and maids.

Besides, doesn't bug me much because I hate children and much prefer money and success.

Quote:
Vernacular takes a while to change, but attitudes on how we treat genders in society today are not biased towards men.

And in spite of it all, it's MALE values of aggression, ambition, unemotional thinking, and monetary success that get's rewarded. Funny, neh?
GunsmithKitten

First, they aren't always tried as adults. For second, you act like girls don't get tried as adults as well. Lisa Michelle Lambert, Tabitha Buck were all teens but tried as adults in the killing of Laurie Show.


I think it bares noting though, in cases of criminal justice, we get incredible discounts in sentencing for the same exact crimes. It is a statistical fact, women get treated more gently by the criminal justice system then men.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games