• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child Support Payments

Ikari said:
So well being no longer requires being? I don't know about that. To me it's like I'm saying red light falls between 620 and 750 nm. The photon with frequency 700 nm is red. To which you would then reply "red is just your interpretation of the color and thus your opinion".

Death is a state of not being, if you have no being you can have no well being and thus no welfare. It's as if you're telling me you can be hungry when your dead and saying that it's merely my opinion that one must be alive to be hungry.
Click to expand...

sorry Ikari welfare is SUBJECTIVE and because of that your views on it will always be nothing more than opinion. Just the why it is. Some people view a good welfare as a roof, some heat and hopefully a meal a day, some view it has 6 properties, 10 cars, 3 boats and a plane.

ALso your 1st example isnt even CLOSE to being accurate, red is NOT subjective, welfare is, its different to all. Your 2nd example doesnt even make sense.

Twist it how ever you want theres no making your opinion on welfare a fact.
What you view your welfare to be is nothing more than that your view and opinion :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Temporal said:
Incorrect... unless immaculate conception has happened, the man played a role. Maybe he should have kept it in his pants if he didn't want to be a father?



Been there, done that. It was called the Victorian era. You know... the one where women weren't considered persons and couldn't vote? Yeah, that one.
Click to expand...

Why do you treat women like they are children and incapable of making a decision for herself? That is the way your statement comes across.
 
Centrist77 said:
sorry Ikari welfare is SUBJECTIVE and because of that your views on it will always be nothing more than opinion. Just the why it is. Some people view a good welfare as a roof, some heat and hopefully a meal a day, some view it has 6 properties, 10 cars, 3 boats and a plane.

ALso your 1st example isnt even CLOSE to being accurate, red is NOT subjective, welfare is, its different to all. Your 2nd example doesnt even make sense.

Twist it how ever you want theres no making your opinion on welfare a fact.
What you view your welfare to be is nothing more than that your view and opinion :shrug:
Click to expand...

There's lots of subjective analysis with color. Is it orange, is it yellow, is it yellow-orange? Color depends on one's eyes in absence of a meter. Welfare (or well being) also has subjective components to it. Is this better or worse welfare. But there are absolutes to both as well. The visible spectrum is known. Something maybe orange or yellow or yellow-orange; but it's still a color and that's an absolute statement. Welfare too has an absolute component, it only has meaning if you are alive. Welfare is meaningless to the dead as they no longer have a state of being. If you're going to argue that welfare can be had when dead, then the sky is green.
 
Here, I have a great idea that involves no discrimination against anyone:

- If either parent becomes pregnant, whichever one of them is carrying the child can choose to abort or not. (No gender discrimination there...if you think that's unfair, blame biology for discriminating, not the state. In the eyes of the law it's perfectly acceptable for dudes to abort any fetuses that are growing inside them.)

- If a baby is born (regardless of any decisions made during the pregnancy), both parents are held financially responsible for paying for it. This is because they are both responsible for creating it, and the child needs to be supported.

How hard was that? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
There's lots of subjective analysis with color. Is it orange, is it yellow, is it yellow-orange? Color depends on one's eyes in absence of a meter. Welfare (or well being) also has subjective components to it. Is this better or worse welfare. But there are absolutes to both as well. The visible spectrum is known. Something maybe orange or yellow or yellow-orange; but it's still a color and that's an absolute statement. Welfare too has an absolute component, it only has meaning if you are alive. Welfare is meaningless to the dead as they no longer have a state of being. If you're going to argue that welfare can be had when dead, then the sky is green.
Click to expand...

see now you are off track again, sometimes I wonder if this is an act, you are this dishonest or really dont understand some concepts

if red is define by spectrum it is red or it isnt
your opinoin on what your eyes tell you is meaningless

sorry you are still wrong and a persons opinion maybe be that its better to be dead, you dont get to decide for them nor is life need in this matter. Life is not a needed component that again is your opinion.

Its not my argument its a fact that one may view death as a better welfare and thats a fact :shrug: LMAO
 
Red is Red, DEATH IS DEATH. There is nothing subjective about either one.


Its not my argument its a fact that one may view death as a better welfare and thats a fact LMAO
Click to expand...

They can view it anyway they please. Death is not welfare.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Red is Red, DEATH IS DEATH. There is nothing subjective about either one.
They can view it anyway they please. Death is not welfare.
Click to expand...

nothing more than your opinion :shrug:
 
Centrist77 said:
nothing more than your opinion :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's just your opinion.

HAHAHAH, I can play the obstructionist, non-contributing role as well. Of course, it serves no purpose; but you seem to enjoy it so I thought I'd give it a shot. Regardless, you merely do not wish to acknowledge the absolutes in a system. Welfare is only meaningful while you are alive. Once you're dead, it's pointless. It is true that people sometimes feel that their life is so messed up, so unsalvagable that they are better off not even trying. But that's NOT a mindset which proliferates welfare, it's one which negates it and trivializes it. There is only hope while you live, when you're dead there is no hope of anything. You are dead. Thus for the constructs of promoting and proliferating welfare, it requires one to be alive; you cannot possess welfare when you are dead.

Regardless, even if we say "well people commit suicide", that's not applicable for debate on the welfare of a child since the child isn't the one choosing to die. Rather it is other people weighing the current situations of their lives and choosing the convenient solution. If they choose, they wipe the child out of existence, it's not the same as suicide.
 
Ikari said:
That's just your opinion.

HAHAHAH, I can play the obstructionist, non-contributing role as well. Of course, it serves no purpose; but you seem to enjoy it so I thought I'd give it a shot. Regardless, you merely do not wish to acknowledge the absolutes in a system. Welfare is only meaningful while you are alive. Once you're dead, it's pointless. It is true that people sometimes feel that their life is so messed up, so unsalvagable that they are better off not even trying. But that's NOT a mindset which proliferates welfare, it's one which negates it and trivializes it. There is only hope while you live, when you're dead there is no hope of anything. You are dead. Thus for the constructs of promoting and proliferating welfare, it requires one to be alive; you cannot possess welfare when you are dead.

Regardless, even if we say "well people commit suicide", that's not applicable for debate on the welfare of a child since the child isn't the one choosing to die. Rather it is other people weighing the current situations of their lives and choosing the convenient solution. If they choose, they wipe the child out of existence, it's not the same as suicide.
Click to expand...

you are 100% right it IS my opinion thus proving welfare is SUBJECTIVE and what you think it is I and others may not.

thanks, glad you finally get it!!

Id acknowledge the absolute IF you gave me one RELATING to welfare, you did not, you gave me your opinion of what you thought one was but again, it was just your opinion. By definition there is no absolute and its subjective :shrug: thats the reality you are denying LMAO

Glad you decided to no longer fight the truth and reality.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Obviously I can because that's what I did. And NO, if it could be done we'd still be having this debate, it would just be reversed from what it is currently.
Click to expand...

You sure did...and it means absolutely NOTHING. There's nothing in logic or the law that support your fantasy reverse tales. Your argument doesn't even include "assumptions or definitions"...as you've accused me of doing. EXCUUUUUSSSSEEEE ME. Especially for "definitions".

Break my post apart and tear away... and I'll happily review my assumptions...or definitions and give you concrete information in lieu of.

But lets go back and REVIEW our banter, otay...?

Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
All these arguments work the other way too. Life ain't fair. Women clearly know prior to having sex that pregnancy can result, blah blah blah. All the arguments you use can be used in reverse as well; you've just made assumptions and definitions earlier on to support your argument is all.

As I stated much earlier in the thread, these topics are purely philosophical as no real law would ever be passed that would allow fathers to get away without paying for the kid. Thus we are free to explore the topic void of the usual moral quandary which typically accompanies the topic.
Click to expand...
MORAL QUANDARY? You are too funny.
Click to expand...

No...I'm sorry, the arguments don't work the other way. This thread was created to rant about the inequalities, disparities, or lack of rights AKA DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN when it comes to what women want to do in case of a pregnancy. They have the legal right to abort...with or without a the father's permission. Should they choose to keep the baby, they can petition the court to mandate that the father pay child support...and other forms of responsibilities such as required visitations and so-forth...DESPITE the father wanting a child or NOT.

That's what this thread is about...legal discrimination against men.

I'm not a Constitutional Attorney or an Attorney General of some state -so I can't argue points of the law that exists to the degree that I can be a change agent. I will never be able to alter Federal and State Supreme Court Decisions. THE REALITY IS: They are what they are. AS A MAN...you are legally bound by them. It's your responsibility to be at least aware of them, if not educate yourself about these laws.

You have the choice to ignore them or abide by them. But ether way - the law will prevail with or without your approval.

IN THE END

NO...you aren't going to reverse anything. If it could be done...we wouldn't be having this debate.
Click to expand...


As the country song says, "That's my story and I'm stickin to it!"
 
Removable Mind said:
You sure did...and it means absolutely NOTHING. There's nothing in logic or the law that support your fantasy reverse tales.
Click to expand...

Just reality. The current set of abortion laws came from the adoption of a certain sect of arguments. But before the law was there, both sides had arguments. After the law was there, both sides had arguments. Nothing really changed except for which side was "winning".

The arguments of saying "well the guy should have kept it in his pants" does go both ways; particularly if you switch assumptions of argument. There can be argument made that says "the woman should have kept her legs closed, but she instead engaged in an activity that could lead to pregnancy, in this case did. Now there's a child and you have to deal with that outcome". You can always say that the dude is on the line, that it's his fault and he should have thought ahead or planned better or made better choices. But the same argument can be made in reverse. Where the woman is on the line, that it's her fault, and she should have thought ahead or planned better or made better choices. That once the life is created, just because she messed up and planned poorly doesn't mean that she can destroy the life for her convenience. See, that argument DOES go both ways.

Other people have attempted to say that abortion considers the welfare of the child. But it's also a BS argument for one to try to claim that killing the child best serves its welfare. Because that's obviously not true. Being dead does not serve anyone's personal welfare.
 
Centrist77 said:
you are 100% right it IS my opinion thus proving welfare is SUBJECTIVE and what you think it is I and others may not.

thanks, glad you finally get it!!

Id acknowledge the absolute IF you gave me one RELATING to welfare, you did not, you gave me your opinion of what you thought one was but again, it was just your opinion. By definition there is no absolute and its subjective :shrug: thats the reality you are denying LMAO

Glad you decided to no longer fight the truth and reality.
Click to expand...

I'm a scientist, I know nothing but truth and reality. It's my specialty. It's how I can recognize the subjective and absolute properties of something such as welfare. It's a qualitative and quantitative set of measurements, and I am damned good at them. Welfare cannot be possessed by the dead. Sorry, that's just an absolute.
 
Ikari said:
I'm a scientist, I know nothing but truth and reality. It's my specialty. It's how I can recognize the subjective and absolute properties of something such as welfare. It's a qualitative and quantitative set of measurements, and I am damned good at them. Welfare cannot be possessed by the dead. Sorry, that's just an absolute.
Click to expand...

Think what you want but either way you are wrong LMAO
It seems to be common place with you that at times that you try to change arguments and distract people and get off track etc etc but it doesn't work with me. Im not emotionally charged nor do I let people change my argument or move my goal post.

We could go another 300 pages and nothing will change, welfare would still be subjective and claiming anything else would still be wrong. You simply dont get to choose what welfare is for everyone, they do.

Welfare is not a SET qualitative and quantitative set of measurements, its a subjective one. :shrug:

what you are failing to recognize is that its only your opinion on what welfare is and that opinion only reigns true for you.

I do however find your responses very entertaining and even quite inventive at times. Its funny to watch you make some people spin into a tizzy, get all emotional and not even know what they are debating anymore. LOL

Regardless the main point I made is still true. Welfare is subjective.
 
Centrist77 said:
Regardless the main point I made is still true. Welfare is subjective.
Click to expand...

Your statement is only half true. Relative welfare is subjective. But there is an absolute, one you continually WILL NOT even address so that you can keep with your "It's an opinion!" nonsense. And that is that the dead do not possess welfare. And that's an absolute. One's well being no longer has any meaning once one no longer has a being. That's absolute. Quantitative measurement, BTW, is rarely "subjective". LMAO
 
Ikari said:
Your statement is only half true. Relative welfare is subjective. But there is an absolute, one you continually WILL NOT even address so that you can keep with your "It's an opinion!" nonsense. And that is that the dead do not possess welfare. And that's an absolute. One's well being no longer has any meaning once one no longer has a being. That's absolute. Quantitative measurement, BTW, is rarely "subjective". LMAO
Click to expand...

I have addressed them all you just choice to play games, or ignore that facts lol
Like I said we could go on 300 more posts, tomorrow my welfare will still be my choice and you have no impact on it because its subjective :D

if a person thinks its in their best welfare to be dead that that is welfare for them.
You could argue that the welfare now comes to an END but that still doesn't change the fact they determined their best welfare is to die LMAO

You simply just dont get to control it. Want proof, tell me what MY welfare is. I cant wait to hear this LMAO
 
Temporal said:
Except that a woman has a uterus and a man doesn't. The man gets to walk away from the choice to have sex but the woman does not. She has to deal with it - whether she decides to have the baby or have an abortion.

I find it incredibly telling that on one hand, the pro-life want to stop women from "murdering babies", but since they can't, they'll turn around and try to argue for men's rights to financially coerce women into having abortions just so that men can have equal freedom to choose. That looks a lot more like punishing women than it does fighting for men's rights.
In your vendetta against women's rights, you are overlooking what child support laws are about: children. It has nothing to do with women, but providing children who are born with the best chance at life. So while you're busy trying to equalize a woman's right to choose because you perceive that men are at a disadvantage, the law is more concerned about the welfare of children.

Women have a right to choose because of biological determinism. It sucks for men but that's just the way it is. She can abort or have the baby. When men are capable of carrying children to term, then we can have this discussion. Until then, I care more about children being supported than I do men shirking their responsibilities.

Men will never have equal abortion rights because men don't carry fetuses. Get a clue.



Uh, what?
Click to expand...
It would look that way to a liberal like you. Why don't you get a clue. Women should not be solely empowered over procreation. If they want abortions, they need to pay up or shut up.
 
Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to have a child with or get a vasectomy.
 
Centrist77 said:
I have addressed them all you just choice to play games, or ignore that facts lol
Like I said we could go on 300 more posts, tomorrow my welfare will still be my choice and you have no impact on it because its subjective :D

if a person thinks its in their best welfare to be dead that that is welfare for them.
You could argue that the welfare now comes to an END but that still doesn't change the fact they determined their best welfare is to die LMAO

You simply just dont get to control it. Want proof, tell me what MY welfare is. I cant wait to hear this LMAO
Click to expand...

You ain't addressed nothing. You've merely said the entire time that "that's your opinion". Maybe then you can explain to me how someone has well being when they have no being. Perchance ghosts or afterlife or something. I await your proof.

I mean yeah, my opinion on the subjective manner of welfare will have no impact on your own welfare....less I shoot you dead. Then I do have an impact. Of course, since it's all "objective" right? I may just be sending you to a better place. A little thanks would be nice.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
You ain't addressed nothing. You've merely said the entire time that "that's your opinion". Maybe then you can explain to me how someone has well being when they have no being. Perchance ghosts or afterlife or something. I await your proof.

I mean yeah, my opinion on the subjective manner of welfare will have no impact on your own welfare....less I shoot you dead. Then I do have an impact. Of course, since it's all "objective" right? I may just be sending you to a better place. A little thanks would be nice.
Click to expand...

you are correct I have said that because its true LMAO
sorry me repeating facts confuses you because its not what you want me to say :shrug:
I dont need to prove your opinion LMAO
what you think welfare is, thats YOUR opinion why do I need to prove that? nice try

and see you can not answer the question thats why it is subjective and you are simply wrong, thanks for playing ;)
 
Ikari said:
Men and women both, eh?
Click to expand...

what are you babbling about and making up now? LOL

whats unrealistic is acting like society will change tomorrow and the country will only have sex for procreation

thats simply fantasy land not to mention pure dishonesty and nonsense
 
Luna Tick said:
Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to have a child with or get a vasectomy.
Click to expand...
Don't have sex if you want to have abortions, or get your tubes ties. If fact get your mouth tied off while your at it.
 
Centrist77 said:
you are correct I have said that because its true LMAO
sorry me repeating facts confuses you because its not what you want me to say :shrug:
I dont need to prove your opinion LMAO
what you think welfare is, thats YOUR opinion why do I need to prove that? nice try

and see you can not answer the question thats why it is subjective and you are simply wrong, thanks for playing ;)
Click to expand...

LMAO sorry if repeating facts confuses you. LMAO

LMAO

LMAO

LMAO you can't even tell reality from the fiction in your mind. LMAO

LMAO

LMAO

what you think welfare is, that's YOUR opinion. But LMAO you can't ignore reality LMAO

LMAO you made the claim it's purely subjective and that I'm wrong when I state that death is an absolute. LMAO

So, LMAO, what you are saying is that one can hold positive welfare when dead. LMAO I want to know HOW one can hold positive welfare when dead LMAO

LMAO

You can tell me that gods exist too LMAO, but I won't believe it till there is proof. LMAO

You say "opinion", I say when there is no being, you can not have well being. You claim the opposite. Mine is true by intuition, yours you made up because you don't want to admit that there are absolutes to welfare. So I'm asking you to back up your claims, LMOA. Prove that without being, one can have well being; LMAO. Should be easy right? I mean, you claim that I can not answer the question that's why it's subjective, yet you AVOID THE QUESTIONS TO YOU. Therefore, you can not answer the question, that's why death is an absolute. LMAO

You are simply wrong, LMAO. Thanks for playing. LMAO LMAO LMAO ;) ;) ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom