Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
As far as I know, the law in US federal states and Western European countries is usually that a husband may not have a paternity test done on the child or children unless the wife agrees to it in writing and the family court permits it (in case of a divorce).
I think this is less broadly true. I'm not familiar with Europe but based on my research on the United States there are only 15 or so states that seem to have any regulation of genetic testing of another person. To the extent this conduct is prohibited there, it's prohibited under general genetic testing/privacy/medical decision laws (requiring consent of both parents) rather than some kind of specific anti-paternity-testing law.
More broadly, I think the law recognizes an obvious distinction between legal parentage and genetic parentage. There's an (often rebuttable) presumption that the two are the same but they don't have to be.
Imagine a couple adopt an infant. They remain together for several more years and then divorce. Can a court order the non-custodial parent pay child support to the non-custodial parent? Should the biological parents (if they are even identifiable) be on the hook for the child support? There's no question here that the parents are not the biological parents of the child but I think courts would still happily order one to pay child support. There's an obvious analogy to a situation where a man signs a birth certificate. Acts as a child's father for some years. Only for it to come to light they are not genetically related.
I clicked through and read the article and the perspective therein was so foreign I feel like I'm being trolled. I don't even know where to begin.
Yes restaurant critics review the entire experience of going to a restaurant. They do not obsessively focus on establishing which one has the better tasting food. Am I the crazy one? Is the taste of the food the only thing normal people care about at a restaurant? I am pretty confident people who are into, like, fine dining care a lot about atmosphere and presentation and ambiance and so on. Going to a restaurant can be an Experience!
The analogy with taking medicine feels so insane. The vast majority of people taking medicine are not doing so for pleasure, they are doing so for purely functional reasons. That is not, to my mind, how people engage with entertainment or art. People can be, and often are, induced into engaging in pleasurable activities by a good story about a thing or a sense of novelty. I cannot tell you how many books I've been induced to read because they had a cool design on the cover rather than by my expectation they would be good (often wrong!)
And, like, the context outside an artistic work can obviously inform one's enjoyment of that work. Has Scott really never had the experience of enjoying something more due to knowledge not contained in the work itself? Has he ever had an in-joke?
More options
Context Copy link