This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You can't think of why a married man would want to legally establish he'd been cheated on and duped?
No, I can't. The legal consequences of disestablishing paternity are irrelevant if the man and woman are married and living in the same household with the child. The three things that are legally at play here are support obligations, visitation rights, and the right to make decisions. Married guys with kids don't pay child support to their wives, and visitation isn't an issue when you live together. And he doesn't need a court order to let his wife make all the decisions.
Having legally established that you'd been cheated on and tricked into raising somebody else's kid isn't going to be a relevant factor in the following divorce case?
I would only recommend pursuing an at-fault divorce if the following apply:
And even then, as I've said about 50 times by now, the court would order the test after you file.
Why on earth do you think it makes any sense at all for the "official" test to come after the divorce is filed, rather than before? One would think you'd want to have that sorted out formally and then decide to file based on that result, not file for a lark and then find out.
Regarding the "at-fault" thing: justice is its own reward. It's not going to be a secret you got cucked either way, obviously.
I think Rov_Scam's focusing on the 'legally' part of 'legally disestablishing paternity'. Because the legal effort to disestablishment paternity is seeking a court order, it's not special because of the genetic testing providing stronger technology, but because of the formal environment on the legal system providing 'proof' from a seeing-as-a-state perspective. Even if you're divorcing the person for unrelated reasons and then want to make sure that the kid is yours, you'll want to file for divorce immediately because of associated delays rather than figure out paternity; if you're filing divorce because the kid isn't yours, you need to know that before any legal filings because a false claim will probably have your wife divorcing you.
((I'm not convinced it's always useless to go with an at-fault divorce, but it's definitely one of those things that's iffy : infidelity can impact alimony, but it's ultimately up to the judge
making it upweighing competing factors, and outside of very high-income relationships, it's quite possible that any difference will get swallowed by the increased legal costs, risks of proof being insufficient, and counterclaims (either reciprocal infidelity, or acknowledgement).That said, it can speed up the divorce. I think it matters less in PA most of the time, since it has a 90-day no-fault if both partners agree and that's faster than you can get on a court docket, but either a unilateral divorce or in states that require 1-year separate for all no-fault divorces, that can be value of its own.))
Caveat: I'll make the cuck argument here, and it's not the kid's fault their mom failed to either keep it in her pants or have the balls to request an open marriage. But I get that matters a lot more for het people.
You wrote a great reply so apologies for responding to the smallest detail first:
Hang on, are you also in PA? Just how much of this board is located in PA? One could be forgiven for getting the impression there are like 2 Indians, an Irish woman, and everyone else here is from Pennsylvania.
Don't forget the two New J*rseyans who can't get guns because they saw psychiatrists one or two decades ago and don't have the records.
There's also the guy who can't get a gun because he can't find three unrelated people who would vouch for him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link