Involuntary Servitude part 8: Child Support (1 Viewer)

[Henrin]

It isn't necessary to avoid sex. It's necessary to avoid unprotected sex. There's a difference. I'd have thought you knew that.

You do realize pregnancy can still happen when protection is used, right?

 

[Lursa]

Yes, just avoid sex. I've heard it before countless times in the abortion debate and the child support debate by amazingly opposite sides. Those that argue that the women needs to keep her legs shut in the abortion debate are commonly pro-life individuals, while those that tell the man to keep pants on in the child support debate are commonly pro-choice individuals. Those that tell the woman to keep her legs shut in the abortion debate are commonly men, and those that commonly tell men to keep their pants on in the child support argument are commonly women. I wonder what the reason for that is.

Not at all...there is no judgement here...have all the sex you want, men and women...sex is wonderful. But both have to accept the consequences if they do.

You are whining about having to accept consequences. If you dont want consequences then CHOOSE not to have sex. Women cannot have sex without consequences, why should men be able to?


This is a philosophy you'd want to base a society on? Avoiding consequences, avoiding the direct results of your actions? LOLOLOL

 

[Lursa]

It is of course a violation of property rights since the man is offered no choice but to pay the state.



You would need my permission for that if I'm not mistaken.

Your property rights (by your particular interpretation) are violated all the time then, by taxation, by other laws that hold you accountable....doesnt matter if you object...again, your philosophy is not remotely grounded in reality nor is it practicable. Legally or morally.

Sig: Really? DId you give someone permission to use the one where you dont understand why child porn is illegal?

 

[Henrin]

The woman cannot walk away free from sex if she gets pregnant...that's impossible. She has consequences she cannot avoid.

--she has a kid
--she miscarries
--she has an abortion

All of which are natural and not imposed on her by outside individuals. Well, unless she was raped of course.

All pretty serious consequences, each with risks. Stop whining, it will never be fair. A man's life or health is NEVER in danger, for instance.

Comparing natural consequences to those imposed by third parties is foolishness. Child support is a product of law, while pregnancy is a product of sex and the natural order.

 

[Henrin]

Really? DId you give Sangha permission to use the one where you dont understand why child porn is illegal?

No, but I could have him remove it if I wanted. I just don't care to do so.

Btw, I asked a question about owning child porn, not if child porn itself should be illegal.

 

[MaggieD]

You do realize pregnancy can still happen when protection is used, right?

Yep, I do. If you're that paranoid, get a vasectomy. 3-5% failure rate. So one would have to have the perfect storm: condom fails; woman gets pregnant. *shrug*

 

[Henrin]

Yep, I do. If you're that paranoid, get a vasectomy. 3-5% failure rate. So one would have to have the perfect storm: condom fails; woman gets pregnant. *shrug*

Sorry, I'm not going to remove my bodily functions.

 

[Lursa]

Men have no reason to adjust to their freedom being robbed from them. If he is able to walk away free from sex naturally then legally he should be able to do the same.

Fortunately, you have a poor grasp of how the law works. Yes, I know you are proposing change. But since what you propose is completely selfish AND costs the state and the taxpayers, i.e. society, it's not going to happen. We have laws to protect people and society.

Your right to 'walk away naturally' does not supersede the needs of the child and the needs of the taxpayers. You refuse to recognize that your avoidance places the burden of your actions on others....the same unfairness you object to. Inconsistent and hypocritical, it only considers YOU (the man, the example.)

You want to toss around 'involuntary servitude' but have no problems forcing it on others for your actions. Or you are proposing abandoning children to die...since you, the mother, and taxpayers can all choose to 'walk away naturally'....again, legally and morally not happening.

 

[Lursa]

Sorry, I'm not going to remove my bodily functions.

LOLOLOL

This is the exact thinking I'm talking about. "I dont CARE what it means, I am going to have sex anytime I want. I'm NOT going to change, I dont have to."

It's not realistic....the law is the law (and right is right) and you can ACT anyway you want but today, you will not escape the consequences. This kind of thinking is what 5 yr olds do and then cry later.

 

[MaggieD]

Sorry, I'm not going to remove my bodily functions.

Who the **** cares??? You are never going to make a good case for a father being able to simply walk away from a child he made. Ever. People who believe as you do, if they find themselves in that predicament, will live under the radar and ruin their whole lives so they don't have to make payments to the woman they chose to have sex with. What a way to live a life.

 

[Lursa]

No, but I could have him remove it if I wanted. I just don't care to do so.

Btw, I asked a question about owning child porn, not if child porn itself should be illegal.

LOLOL

You keep avoiding this:

Your property rights (by your particular interpretation) are violated all the time then, by taxation, by other laws that hold you accountable....doesnt matter if you object...again, your philosophy is not remotely grounded in reality nor is it practicable. Legally or morally.

 

[Henrin]

LOLOLOL

This is the exact thinking I'm talking about. "I dont CARE what it means, I am going to have sex anytime I want. I'm NOT going to change, I dont have to."

Check that natural order again? Does it say anything about the man dealing with the consequences of pregnancy if he doesn't decide to do so? Nope.

It's not realistic....the law is the law (and right is right) and you can ACT anyway you want but today, you will not escape the consequences. This kind of thinking is what 5 yr olds do and then cry later.

You besides men actually do escape the consequences? Laws can change and as it stands this law is unconstitutional and a violation of property rights.

 

[Henrin]

LOLOL

You keep avoiding this:

In part three I made the case that compulsory taxation is a violation of property rights and involuntary servitude. If you want you can check my argument in that thread and make your case as to how I'm wrong there.

 

[Henrin]

Who the **** cares??? You are never going to make a good case for a father being able to simply walk away from a child he made. Ever. People who believe as you do, if they find themselves in that predicament, will live under the radar and ruin their whole lives so they don't have to make payments to the woman they chose to have sex with. What a way to live a life.

People act in undesirable ways when they feel they are being oppressed. Happens all the time. When their choices are limited to becoming a loser or working under the table they will decide on one of those two choices if they are determined to not be oppressed.

 

[Henrin]

Fortunately, you have a poor grasp of how the law works. Yes, I know you are proposing change. But since what you propose is completely selfish AND costs the state and the taxpayers, i.e. society, it's not going to happen. We have laws to protect people and society.

Laws are meant to protect the rights of people, and taking peoples property without their consent is clearly failing to uphold that.

Your right to 'walk away naturally' does not supersede the needs of the child and the needs of the taxpayers. You refuse to recognize that your avoidance places the burden of your actions on others....the same unfairness you object to. Inconsistent and hypocritical, it only considers YOU (the man, the example.)

I dealt with that argument many times over. No one has the right to force someone into labor or to force someone to provide them service. If the government decides they want to care for the child that is their choice, and they are responsible for it.

You want to toss around 'involuntary servitude' but have no problems forcing it on others for your actions. Or you are proposing abandoning children to die...since you, the mother, and taxpayers can all choose to 'walk away naturally'....again, legally and morally not happening.

The man is not forcing anyone into involuntary servitude. You are confusing the actions of the man with the actions of the state.

 

[Lursa]

In part three I made the case that compulsory taxation is a violation of property rights and involuntary servitude. If you want you can check my argument in that thread and make your case as to how I'm wrong there.

RIght....and again, this is why your little philosophy is not realistic or practicable.

If anything, protecting kids is way more important that some of those other laws. Our legal system is not going to change significantly Several of us, including me, have indulged you and pointed out how YOUR system doesnt work on it's own merits.

You cannot explain how the man 'walking away naturally' does not force others into involuntary servitude for something he produced. Outside of everyone being able to 'walk away naturally' and abandon kids to die.

So, your philosophy is a fail, morally (as you've even admitted, so what's the point?) and legally. Essentially there is no state nor laws in your fantasy, when you dig deeper into it. Again, not realistic and not practicable (do you know what 'practicable' means? Not 'practical'....'practicable.')

 

[Henrin]

RIght....and again, this is why your little philosophy is not realistic or practicable.

So you don't care to deal with my argument? Ok.

If anything, protecting kids is way more important that some of those other laws. Our legal system is not going to change significantly Several of us, including me, have indulged you and pointed out how YOUR system doesnt work on it's own merits.

It would seem to me that government imposed child support leads to men ruining their lives and an increase in the amount of children not supported by their fathers. I wouldn't exactly call your philosophy a success story.

You cannot explain how the man 'walking away naturally' does not force others into involuntary servitude for something he produced. Outside of everyone being able to 'walk away naturally' and abandon kids to die.

I explained it perfectly. The actions of the state are not the actions of the man. When the state forces taxpayers to care for the child it is their actions that made that happen.

So, your philosophy is a fail, morally (as you've even admitted, so what's the point?) and legally. Essentially there is no state nor laws in your fantasy, when you dig deeper into it. Again, not realistic and not practicable (do you know what 'practicable' means? Not 'practical'....'practicable.')

You haven't challenged my legal argument. :shrug:

 

[Lursa]

Laws are meant to protect the rights of people, and taking peoples property without their consent is clearly failing to uphold that.

Great....so then to protect the rights of the taxpayers....there would be no taxpayers and everyone walks away, abandons kid. Cool.

Your statement is only partly correct tho...because our laws are also to protect people, period. So that society functions.

I dealt with that argument many times over. No one has the right to force someone into labor or to force someone to provide them service. If the government decides they want to care for the child that is their choice, and they are responsible for it.

How does the government care for the child? Where did it get the money for that? See...not remotely realistic or practicable.



The man is not forcing anyone into involuntary servitude. You are confusing the actions of the man with the actions of the state.

Not at all. He walks away, she walks away, state has zero obligation to do anything with kid. Kid is abandoned.

LOL you are kind of taking butt-hurt over standing up like a man to your obligations to a whole new level...inventing a 'legal system' that makes you feel good about doing so, that attempts to justify it. That is how pissed you seem to be over women having control over pregnancy.

I know this BS about forced labor makes sense to you....but it doesnt, really.

 

[Lursa]

You haven't challenged my legal argument. :shrug:

Sure I have. No point in repeating myself. You have not explained at all why the kid is not abandoned to die. The state, in your 'legal system' has no power or money to provide for the child. So if mother and father wont step up....it dies. THis is what you are attempting to justify. The state has no obligation to care for it and no means to develop any infrastructure to do so.


And child support ruins men's lives? Boo hoo hoo. Lack of child support ruins children's lives. Do you not see how resentful you are? Over something you're mad you cant control, so you are attempting to invent something to justify not having to be personally responsible. It makes you look pretty bad, really.

 

[Lursa]

People act in undesirable ways when they feel they are being oppressed. Happens all the time. When their choices are limited to becoming a loser or working under the table they will decide on one of those two choices if they are determined to not be oppressed.

So even you cannot justify your 'legal system' that enables it?

 

[Henrin]

Great....so then to protect the rights of the taxpayers....there would be no taxpayers and everyone walks away, abandons kid. Cool.

The rights of the taxpayers are already violated by compulsory taxation. The government providing people welfare or handling adoption services doesn't violate anyones rights.

Your statement is only partly correct tho...because our laws are also to protect people, period. So that society functions.

They really can't do that without protecting their rights. When the government violates the peoples rights they are fundamentally failing to uphold their mission.

How does the government care for the child? Where did it get the money for that? See...not remotely realistic or practicable.

That doesn't say much, you know. The government deciding to take an action towards something they see as a problem is their action. It's that simple.

Not at all. He walks away, she walks away, state has zero obligation to do anything with kid. Kid is abandoned.

If both parties walk and the state picks up the slack then the government made a choice to pick up the slack.

 

[Lursa]

The rights of the taxpayers are already violated by compulsory taxation. The government providing people welfare or handling adoption services doesn't violate anyones rights.

They really can't do that without protecting their rights. When the government violates the peoples rights they are fundamentally failing to uphold their mission.

That doesn't say much, you know. The government deciding to take an action towards something they see as a problem is their action. It's that simple.

If both parties walk and the state picks up the slack then the government made a choice to pick up the slack.

No point in repeating myself. You have not explained at all why the kid is not abandoned to die. The state, in your 'legal system' has no power or money to provide for the child. So if mother and father wont step up....it dies. This is what you are attempting to justify. The state has no obligation to care for it and no means to develop any infrastructure to do so.

...........

 

[Lursa]

If both parties walk and the state picks up the slack then the government made a choice to pick up the slack.

How?....

 

[Henrin]

Sure I have. No point in repeating myself. You have not explained at all why the kid is not abandoned to die. The state, in your 'legal system' has no power or money to provide for the child. So if mother and father wont step up....it dies. THis is what you are attempting to justify. The state has no obligation to care for it and no means to develop any infrastructure to do so.

No, you actually haven't. You keep blaming the man for the actions of the state, but you never challenged my argument itself. Oh and btw, taxes doesn't need to be compulsory unless the state needs a large amount of money.

And child support ruins men's lives? Boo hoo hoo. Lack of child support ruins children's lives. Do you not see how resentful you are? Over something you're mad you cant control, so you are attempting to invent something to justify not having to be personally responsible. It makes you look pretty bad, really.

Child support itself can ruin mens lives, but in those cases it's mostly because it takes a considerable amount from him. In other cases, the man does it to himself because he refuses to be a party to something he never consented to. Again, no one is owed the labor, service, or property of another.

 

[Henrin]

How?....

They decided on their own to act to pick up the slack left by the parents. How is that not obvious?