Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
17d ago
I didn't say that, I just said you can't say "the purpose of the law is support the child because the law says so, it's in the name, stupid". You do this multiple times so I'm only addressing it once.
Your rules are absurd and demonstration nothing because they could apply to a lot of laws. "You can't refer to the purpose of the law in describing what it does" would make many laws illegible.
The fact that the support ends when the child reaches age of majority This is also compatible with the mother support theory.
No, because it expires when the child no longer needs support.
How would you propose disentangling "mother support" from "child support." Any money given to a mother to support her child necessarily benefits her.
Do the needs of children scale with the father's income? They eat more food? Wear more clothes?
I am fine with a rich man having to pay more than a poor man to support his children. If you're rich you shouldn't get to leave your children in poverty because you don't think you owe them anything. If you want to propose a cap, I'd be amenable, but not if it's the bare minimum because fuck those kids (and their mother).
I'm less concerned about this part than other elements, but to the extent that it matters, it is a solved problem. You make it an EBT card with similar controls. Courts can pull the records on a moment's notice. There's way less deniability because the funds aren't co-mingled. This isn't rocket science. Wouldn't be surprised if some places already do this.
Wouldn't you still protest that she might be eating some of the food bought with the EBT card (which she almost certainly is)? Or, again, that being given money to buy food for her child means she can use some of her other money for not-child things? It does not solve the problem from your perspective (which is that we should somehow prevent the mother from benefiting in any way).
Do you actually know what typical child support is? Because you seem to think the median child support payer is being drained of half his income or more and it equals or exceeds the amount actually needed for basic living expenses for a child. This is not the median situation.
I have financial obligations to women all across the country and their children. No bailing on that one, unfortunately. I'd probably feel less bad about child support if it meant I never had to pay strange woman to raise another man's kid.
That's a slightly different issue, because enforcement is hard and society picks up the tab on deadbeats. But I'd be on board with much harsher measures for men who can't/won't pay- "lithium mines," sure. I don't think you actually would be, though.
Who cares? Nobody has any concern for the welfare of children when it collides with the needs/wants/whims of women. If a woman's right to drink smoke and snort as much as she wants while pregnant is inviolable, I don't see how a man's right to stay home and play video games shouldn't also be etched in sapphire.
I am pretty sure there are laws under which women who abuse drugs and cause their children to be born addicted, or with birth defects, can be charged, though that's another hard to enforce law. If you want to make it illegal for a woman to drink, smoke or do any drugs at all while pregnant, I think it's impractical, but let's say I agree in theory. The point of child support laws is not to make sure men and women are being "punished" equally, it's to provide for children. "Well, if we cared about children, we should do this also!" Okay, if I agree in theory but also acknowledge we can't/won't do that, what now? Fuck them kids because it's unfair to men? Some things are unfair for biological reasons (where a lot of these conversations wind up, usually about the time the proposal that a man should be able to disavow any responsibility or obligation for children he fathers emerges).
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
19d ago
DreadJimming is just as destructive when women do it.
Yes, but I disagree with his framing (and yours) that women are just tee-hee frivorce-raping hapless men with the power of the state.
It's harder than MRAs would have you believe for a wife to just casually strip-mine an ex, even with no-fault divorce.
If you want to restore a stable equilibrium between the sexes, it's not by listening to people who, frankly, hate the other sex.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
22d ago
It makes a difference if you want to send them somewhere out of the way. Though if you're saying you think his actual preferred solution is in fact extermination, well, maybe it is. He kind of denies it but not really, so we're just speculating.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
22d ago
Would you even believe him if he threw up his hands, said "fine, I don't want to kill the Jews"?
Sure, but I'd still ask "Okay, then what do you want to do about them?"
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
23d ago
Okay, sure. This conversation is still very strange to me, it's like reddit-tier grasp of nuance. I am not defending the statements, just saying he said A, not B. "Oh, so you're saying A is fine!" No, that is not what I said.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
29d ago
Ideally, the responsibility is not imposed. In practice, people pollute the commons and infringe upon others' freedoms.
This is why we have laws and governments. All laws and governments are restrictions on liberty.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5d ago
I think you're hiding the ball a little there. Hardly anyone disputes that Jews have an outsized commercial and cultural impact on the world. Just look at their presence compared to their numbers! What the Jew haters contend is that this impact is bad, and even malicious. If you ask me "Assume they are right about that" you're asking me to assume someone's most hostile description of their outgroup is correct. Uh, golly that would be pretty bad if this group you hate really is out to get me and destroy my civilization. Excuse me if I require more substance before I seriously indulge such hypotheticals.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
17d ago
This place isn't really for self-promoting. We'll let people post links to their blogs, but generally not as their first post with no previous participating in the community.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
17d ago
There was nothing wrong with my reply.
I'm telling you there is something wrong with your replies throughout this thread.
You can reject that or ignore me. I'm just informing you of the situation and what the consequences will be if this continues.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
17d ago
"Now, sure, every time in the last 200 years that a nation declared itself as enlightened atheists guided by pure reason they immediately proceeded with the worst atrocities yet visited upon man, but hey, what's religion got to do with anything?"
Which non-communist countries would these be? Because I think the single unifying trait you are ignoring here is communism.
You're better than this response, not least of all because your challenges were answered and you missed it in your haste to throw down the "tl;dr lol."
My response was not "tl;dr lol." You did not answer my challenges, you just keep insisting that Rome and China and the Weimar republic all fell for reasons they did not.
Avarice is self-evidently ruinous. Caprice was explained at the top:
Sure, but I could name a bunch of other ruinous traits also easily found in most countries in decline. This argument is specifically about whether it's control of women (or lack thereof) that is a unifying thread. You mentioned automation. I could mention that and a host of other economic, technological, and tribal concerns that probably figure much more prominently in any potential societal collapse than the "mistake" of letting women have sexual agency.
Do you actually know anything about the circumstances under which a man can "lose most of his assets and future income" in a divorce? It is not common. In fact alimony is pretty rare nowadays (and almost never close to "most" of his assets and future income), child support is to support the children, and the number of men paying "unreasonable" child support (however you define that) is exceeded by the number of men not actually paying their child support. The worse case scenario you will usually see is an equal distribution state where a spouse can claim 50% of marital assets, even those he or she didn't bring into the marriage. (This can and sometimes is the man who benefits, though usually it's the woman.) And not all states do a 50/50 split like that.
You guys seriously need to update your notions of how divorce works from the 1960s, or the 19th century.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
18d ago
Agreed, but I'd also say, unless you are having some other severe marital dysfunction going on, if your wife is saying no all the time, wouldn't you want to... have a conversation about this? Figure out what's going on? As opposed to just "asserting your rights."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
23d ago
... I'm not even sure who this is directed at, but since you just came off a ban for this kind of thing, now you're banned for another three days. Knock it off.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
26d ago
I agree with you that the issue is much more complex than "it's all the women's fault", but I also think that any solution demanding that women change anything about their behavior is haram in our society, and that such changes are indeed necessary to solve the problem.
I mostly agree with this. I have been reading hot takes on both sides for a number of years (the redpillers vs. the feminists, the Dread Jims vs. the radfems) and I think the discourse overall is quite poisonous. On the one hand, yes, Women Are Wonderful and how dare men ever criticize any woman's choice ever? OTOH, it's hard not to sympathize with women who become paranoid and fearful of men when you see so many men (including right here on the Motte) who, mask off, believe that women should not have a choice about who will fuck them. Also, I admit there are very few populations I have a harder time sympathizing with than incels.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
26d ago
You have repeatedly heard from men (I will add myself to that pool) who can tell you from their observed experience that this is not true, that most guys around them don't have insurmountable problems either dating or getting laid, and that those who can't are not perfectly decent, fit guys with good jobs and stable personalities who are being rejected by the entire female population because they are all alpha-widows, but because there is something wrong with these guys.
Frankly, I believe my lying eyes more than I believe a collection of blackpill-curated stats from places like the Institute for Family Studies.
I'm sorry you are having such a struggle, and honestly, the dating landscape does look kind of awful right now (speaking as a guy who was pretty awkward and had a number of other strikes against me in my youth) and I am glad I'm not on the market. But the blackpill is not going to do you any favors. Even if your pessimistic assumptions are true, you ask, "Now what?" Now go out there and get in the game and stop making excuses, that's what. No one is going to hand you pussy or a relationship, and if you have to work harder at it than grandpa, well, every era has its challenges. You probably don't want to deal with the other things grandpa had to deal with.
No, the game is not rigged against you. No, there are not zero acceptable single women in your city. No, the solution is not to contrive reasons why women should not have agency to choose.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4d ago
In principle, I agree, though I think tarring and feathering and deportation is a little extreme...
That said, I absolutely believe #killallmen posters are almost entirely performative, whereas Joo-posters are not.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
17d ago
A child support order is going to say, throughout, "for the support of the child" and among other things will typically specify that support will end when the child turns 18, etc. If we have to black out every mention of "child" then I suppose it might be hard to figure out what the purpose of the order is.
What elements would you point to in order to refute the competing hypothesis that the primary function of the policy is actually mother support?
The fact that the support ends when the child reaches age of majority, and that the calculation of support is based on the child's needs, not the mother's. ("Mother support" is called alimony, and as I mentioned already, it's awarded rarely nowadays, usually only in a marriage of long standing where one spouse has substantially depended on the other and has no ready means of earning income once separated.)
I am guessing your grievance is that the mother (or, more rarely, father) is given $X per month in child support and nothing really prevents her or him from spending it on heroin or lotto tickets. True except inasmuch as failure to care for the child would be subject to court oversight and in extreme cases loss of custody, but if Mom puts all the child support in the same pot of money as her other sources of income (let's assume she has a job, which most often she does) - how would you prefer to make sure she does not personally benefit from the child support? Suppose you think she's spending too much money on clothes for herself. But she can always say "The child support money is what paid for the food Child ate and the Child's clothes, I bought my clothes with the other money." You could argue that without the child support she wouldn't have been able to afford to buy clothes for herself. While true, the point of child support is that children add expenses. If she weren't taking care of the child she could afford to buy clothes for herself.
I have also had this argument about a hundred times. It always boils down to a desire to be punitive and/or bail on financial obligations, almost always rooted in a sense of bitterness and injustice, not actual concern for the welfare of any children in question.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
22d ago
I'm not asking you to denounce anything. I'm honestly curious to know what you actually want to do about the Jews, and I am also annoyed that you keep dancing around it and then denying that you are hiding the ball.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
23d ago
Yes, everybody here does know my views because I don't hide them. The accusation that I secretly want all the Jews killed just because I give cultural criticism towards Jews in a similar nature as Jews like Ignatiev constantly levy against whites is simply your attempt to enforce a social consensus making any criticism of Jews taboo.
But you do hide your views. For example, once again you are carefully tap dancing around the question of whether you do in fact want all the Jews killed.
No one is "yelling hysterically" - we are, rather, noticing, you might say.
Now if I pinned you down and sat on your chest, I am guessing (but this is only a guess ) that your actual preferred solution would be something like disenfranchising Jews, denying them the right to vote or own property in non-Jewish lands, and shipping them all off to Madagascar or somewhere where "Jewish lands" could constitute an impoverished third world incapable of affecting anyone else. So maybe not literally exterminating the Jewish race, just treating them like an invasive species that must be banished elsewhere.
Am I warm?
But you won't even concede that much openly because, you know, it doesn't sound a lot better than just being an outright exterminationist. One way or another, your solution amounts to "Jews cannot coexist with us or be given rights." That sounds pretty bad to the, well, non-Neo Nazi ear, so you waffle on with lots of words about "enforced consensus" and how you don't hide the views you won't admit to. And so you will continue to complain when I point out your intrinsic unwillingness to stop hiding your power level, and I will continue to point out your intrinsic unwillingness to stop hiding your power level.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
23d ago
I forgot BigLoom's comment was filtered, so you aren't the only one who thought I was modding BurdensomeCount. I have fixed it.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
26d ago
Everyone knows the real agenda here is that you don't want anyone getting abortion pills period.
Avoid consensus-building phrases like "everyone knows," as well as presuming you know the other person's motives. You are probably correct that @hydroacetylene does not want anyone getting abortion pills, but you need to actually engage with him ("Are you saying...?" or "I think your actual agenda is...") rather than simply asserting it in this antagonistic fashion. This is a pattern you're unfortunately engaging in a lot. I hate to see it, because here you are a leftie on a mostly anti-left forum (you aren't wrong about that, though you are wrong about "far right"), and you are of course being heavily downvoted and reported for having unpopular opinions. The usual failure mode from here is you get more and more frustrated and antagonized by everyone telling you off, and eventually the warnings accumulate and you get banned. I realize this is a hard pattern to break out of, and maybe it's not entirely fair, but I will tell you that rightie posters that start taking the same attitude you do to all comers who argue with them also wind up getting banned because they just can't stay calm and gracious enough while arguing with people whose opinions they clearly do not respect.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
27d ago
No, I have heard it often recommended but haven't tried it yet.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
28d ago
Given he was clearly going for maximal heat and outrage, I can't rap you too hard for responding with naked contempt and personal attacks , but this was still naked contempt and personal attacks. When someone posts a "pathetic tough guy screed" of course there is a desire to knock him down a peg, but people are actually allowed to post with hearts full of malice, and while I don't love the sentiment, I'd honestly be stretching to say @Hadad broke the rules and you didn't.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
28d ago
I said I haven't tried everything (like LSD). I certainly did try some things. I'm not contemptuous, but I am pretty confident, and you're doing exactly what I predicted: if there's one "opening yourself to the supernatural" that I missed, then clearly I'm just contemptuous and didn't really try. Like I said, I have heard all the angles and apologetics.
Your report was obnoxiously unfunny and we have to deal with enough spurious and bad-faith reports on posts.
Normally I'd leave it at that, but you have a history of this kind of obnoxious trolling, so banned for a day. Knock it off.
More options
Context Copy link