Where Pretty Lies Perish
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:48:50 +0000
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.
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.
... Yeah brah, there's this thing called a dictionary. You might want to look at it.
To what are you referring?
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.
Pregnancy is, from sheer biology, a two-way process.
Ok, I take it you aren't a biology major.
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".
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.