Alimony and Child supoprt should be eliminated. Women should be 100% financially liable for anything that comes out of their womb (whatever)

submitted ago by jernos201

A powerful societal pressure against being a slut in traditional European culture was the inability of a slut to provide for herself if she bore a bastard child . A man was not obligated to take care of a whore's child and thus women were pressured to be conservative because they risked not having a financial means to support their child if they simply whored themselves out.

Sluts have managed to circumvent this aspect of traditional society since the 20th century with the rise of modern child support and alimony laws. This lets sluts to whore themselves out and then collect a paycheck once enough of the sluts countless partners have taken paternity tests. Slutty behavior can be directly tied to the consequences of slutty behavior: if it is a financial risk, less women will be slutty.

Lets eliminate the aspect of the legal system that incentivizes slutty behavior. Get rid of alimony and child support.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Adminstrater ago

Everyone wants to focus on laws.

The problem is with proper moral education.

A moral society is a functional society.

Asvnoyi ago

I see what you mean but the laws supporter the degenerate actions.

lemon11 ago

And how do you prevent a moral society from forming? By burdening it with laws which enshrine and feed immorality at the cost of the rest of us.

Crensch ago

This is probably the stupidest thing I'll read today.

It's the law that forces men to finance sluts. It's the law that forces taxes to go to single moms. Take those away, and morality magically becomes fashionable again.

Or, you know, you could act like the virtue-signalling busybodies of the past 50 years and become repellent to the masses. Nobody wants to be told what they can't do by holier-than-thou faggots, whether on the left or the right.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

It's the law that forces men to finance sluts.

Maybe men shouldn't have sex with sluts then, or with any woman that they would not want to be the mother of their potential children. It's not like you guys have great birth control options, and the law isn't exactly on your side, so why take that risk? If men are going to play a stupid game then they too deserve to win a stupid prize. The fault here is not only on women's shoulders; the men that slutty women are having sex with are also responsible for any kids that are conceived and for whatever fallout results. They should've made better life choices.

Crensch ago

Idiot.

Any woman can be tempted to ruin a man, no matter how sure the man is that she is wife material.

Get your head out of the clouds, faggot.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

Men are pretty weak-minded then, if that's the case. Maybe you guys are the weaker sex if all it takes to ruin a man is a pretty face and some pretty little lies.

At any rate, my point is that men need to take responsibility for their own choices. If a man chooses to sleep with a slut, or to have hookups and casual encounters with women he barely knows, or to jump in bed with a new girlfriend right away, that's his own damn fault and he has some responsibility for whatever happens.

Crensch ago

Maybe you cunts are the weaker sex if all it takes to ruin a man is a false rape accusation.

And with that your entire narrative, and attack on men is destroyed.

Get back in the kitchen.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

Aren't we triggered. Look, sarcasm aside, all I'm saying is that if you want women to be responsible with their sexual choices, why don't you want the same for men? Why should women be the only ones to be smart about their reproductive capacity while men should not have to take any responsibility for the consequences of spreading their seed? All you are advocating for is men being irresponsible and childish.

Crensch ago

Let me break it down for you, since you're a woman:

Here I advocate for the removal of law-based punishments for men.

This is where you make a bunch of REALLY stupid, fractally wrong arguments that I was nice enough to only attack from one angle.

Here you shame men, and talk about men needing to take responsibility for their own choices, again, wrong on multiple levels, but I'm nice enough to just use one to destroy your entire narrative.

all I'm saying is that if you want women to be responsible with their sexual choices, why don't you want the same for men?

You are FOR those aforementioned laws that punish men and reward women with cash and prizes.

Why should women be the only ones to be smart about their reproductive capacity while men should not have to take any responsibility for the consequences of spreading their seed?

You WANT the law to force this. It's evident.

All you are advocating for is men being irresponsible and childish.

Literally advocating for laws that allow women to trap men. Abortion IS legal, so is birth control. So is closing your fucking legs.

You want to talk about responsibility for your actions? Why is it that women require a court to protect them from/reward them for their own choices?

You are entirely too stupid to have this conversation, and you don't even know it.

Bobtheviolent ago

Don't want to pay child support them simply DON'T HAVE SEX! And surprise surprise it applies to both men and women

Crensch ago

Don't want to pay child support them simply DON'T HAVE SEX! And surprise surprise it applies to both men and women

What a stupid response.

Bobtheviolent ago

If your not fucking and therefore don't sure little bastards the "law" Can't force you to "finance sluts". It can all taxpayers but not you as the father. Take responsibility for your own choices.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

fractally wrong arguments

To be clear, are you saying that it is wrong to tell men not to have sex with a slut? Is it wrong to point out that men don't have many birth control options, or that the law sides more with women, and that therefore being careful to avoid sluts is a good choice? Are you saying that it's wrong to advocate that men take responsibility for their choices and all the consequences thereof? I mean, you've been saying that women need to not be sluts and that we need to take responsibility for our choices - why is it wrong to say the same thing about men?

I'm nice enough to just use one to destroy your entire narrative.

You think calling me a cunt and telling me to get back to the kitchen destroyed my argument? lol Okay. For starters, being in the kitchen isn't even an insult - I take great pride in looking after my kids and husband, including cooking them meals. You know I'm not some feminazi who hates domestic life, right? I mean, would that kind of woman be advocating to end abortion and encouraging women not to sleep around? Pay attention!

Here you shame men,

Men who are promiscuous deserve to be shamed. Men who are dumb enough to date a girl they know is a whore and expect her to magically somehow not be a whore should be shamed, just like women should be shamed for sleeping with loser guys who have three kids with three different exes or shamed for being sluts. Shame is a useful tool.

talk about men needing to take responsibility for their own choices, again, wrong on multiple levels,

Okay, so you are saying that it's wrong for men to take responsibility for their own choices. Interesting. I hold my children responsible for the things they do that they shouldn't - are men less capable than children?

You are FOR those aforementioned laws that punish men and reward women with cash and prizes.

I am FOR both men and women using their fucking brains and not being irresponsible and sloppy in their sexual choices. I am FOR both men and women not hooking up with anyone, but instead, waiting until they are in a solid, committed relationship with someone who they know, love, and trust before having sex. I am FOR making it illegal for women to butcher their babies because that's just barbaric. I am FOR both parents making sure that the child they created has all the food and clothing it needs to thrive. I am FOR responsible birth control use by women, and FOR the development of birth control for men. But even more important than what men and women want and need to do, I am most concerned for the child in this scenario because he is the most vulnerable and needy person, and if he is unfortunate enough to have a shitty set of parents, the least we can do as a society is make sure that he doesn't have to be hungry.

I am against alimony categorically, even if the woman was a homemaker or is older. We are not entitled to half a man's shit. And I think that a lot of men get stiffed where child support is concerned because they are expected to fork over an unreasonable and unrealistic amount, and not enough pressure is put on the mother to step the hell up and become the breadwinner so that the father doesn't have to live in poverty because she's a lazy bitch. There are a lot of problems with the way child support is handled, and I am in no way in support of men being robbed and screwed over by a vindictive ex. It's fucking bullshit and no man should be put through that. Child support needs to be reasonable; it doesn't take thousands of dollars a month to provide for a child. And if they are on the hook for child support they should also be given a hell of a lot more custody rights too.

You WANT the law to force this. It's evident.

I want the law to make sure that both men and women cannot abandon or abort their kids because they don't want to be bothered with them. Both men and women need to take responsibility for their choices instead of running away like cowards. Abortion is cowardly as shit. Abandoning a baby is cowardly too. Neither should ever happen.

So is closing your fucking legs.

Yeah, and so is keeping your zipper closed instead of banging a woman you know is a slut, or one who is a stranger to you. Make good choices instead of bad ones, and if she gets pregnant, take care of the baby you helped make instead of disappearing into the night like a pussy. I would say the same thing to a woman: keep your legs shut, make good choices instead of bad ones, and if you get pregnant, don't have an abortion like some kind of pussy - raise your kid.

Why is it that women require a court to protect them from/reward them for their own choices?

You require a court to protect you from or reward you for your own choice here too - aren't you the one who wants courts to make sure that no men have to pay child support?

Crensch ago

To be clear, are you saying that it is wrong to tell men not to have sex with a slut?

No, you imbecile. Point me to where I said anything even REMOTELY like that.

Is it wrong to point out that men don't have many birth control options, or that the law sides more with women, and that therefore being careful to avoid sluts is a good choice?

Same as above. Nice strawmen you're making here. Please continue.

Are you saying that it's wrong to advocate that men take responsibility for their choices and all the consequences thereof?

If you're advocating for LAWS that FORCE that, then absolutely fucking yes.

I mean, you've been saying that women need to not be sluts and that we need to take responsibility for our choices - why is it wrong to say the same thing about men?

Who said this? When? Show me where I said this, or admit you're wrong and apologize.

You think calling me a cunt and telling me to get back to the kitchen destroyed my argument?

No, you stupid cunt, I don't use ad hominem fallacy. I destroyed your arguments, then told you to get back in the fucking kitchen, because you're unqualified to be out of it.

lol Okay. For starters, being in the kitchen isn't even an insult - I take great pride in looking after my kids and husband, including cooking them meals.

You should stick with what you're good at, then. This isn't in that list.

You know I'm not some feminazi who hates domestic life, right? I mean, would that kind of woman be advocating to end abortion and encouraging women not to sleep around? Pay attention!

You're the one that needs to pay attention. I'm not making errors here, you are. You got called out for your bullshit, and instead of admitting you're wrong, you're straw-manning my words, and making emotional arguments to try and avoid the consequences of opening your whore mouth where it's unqualified to be anything but shut.

Men who are promiscuous deserve to be shamed. Men who are dumb enough to date a girl they know is a whore and expect her to magically somehow not be a whore should be shamed, just like women should be shamed for sleeping with loser guys who have three kids with three different exes or shamed for being sluts. Shame is a useful tool.

You're not, though.

You're accusing me of this:

All you are advocating for is men being irresponsible and childish.

When literally all I'm saying is THE LAW NEEDS TO NOT PUNISH MEN AND REWARD WHORES LIKE YOU.

Also, you're STILL not just shaming those kinds of men. If I'm advocating a removal of those laws, and you're arguing AGAINST me, then this:

At any rate, my point is that men need to take responsibility for their own choices.

Where even associating with a woman can get a false rape accusation, living with a woman as a roommate can make you responsible financially, or even being written onto a birth certificate can RUIN A MAN'S FUCKING LIFE, literally EVERYTHING you argue is flat fucking wrong. Shame a man for those choices? What about the last one that isn't even a fucking choice, you stupid cunt?

Okay, so you are saying that it's wrong for men to take responsibility for their own choices. Interesting. I hold my children responsible for the things they do that they shouldn't - are men less capable than children?

Nice cherry-picking of my quote, how about you stop acting like a dishonest whore, and quote my whole line?

Here you shame men, and talk about men needing to take responsibility for their own choices, again, wrong on multiple levels, but I'm nice enough to just use one to destroy your entire narrative.

THAT is the quote. YOUR ARGUMENT shaming men was wrong on multiple levels, not the fact that men need to take responsibility. You're dishonest, you're showing exactly why women cannot be trusted with any kind of power, especially the power to vote.

Some women might earn the right to speak in front of men, but you really should get a backhand to the face for your dishonest, WOMAN-like argumentation here. I bet you cheat on your husband with those skills, too.

I am FOR both men and women using their fucking brains and not being irresponsible and sloppy in their sexual choices. I am FOR both men and women not hooking up with anyone, but instead, waiting until they are in a solid, committed relationship with someone who they know, love, and trust before having sex.

Some poor bastard trusted you, and here you are arguing dishonestly and showing that not even you can really be trusted. How does that fit into your little worldview?

I am against alimony categorically, even if the woman was a homemaker or is older. We are not entitled to half a man's shit. And I think that a lot of men get stiffed where child support is concerned because they are expected to fork over an unreasonable and unrealistic amount, and not enough pressure is put on the mother to step the hell up and become the breadwinner so that the father doesn't have to live in poverty because she's a lazy bitch.

I skipped over some of your other stupidity that literally no one here was arguing against.

It took you this fucking long to say something valid in response to the first comment of mine you replied to? Women like you need to be put in their fucking place for this alone.

We agree, alimony needs to be gone. GREAT! As for CHILD SUPPORT, fuck you. If the woman cannot support the child, she does not get the child... and actually, fuck that. The father gets the children. Period.

Single MOTHERS are the cancer here, not single fathers. Statistically speaking, the children are less abused, and less fucked-in-the-head when they are with single fathers than mothers. You want what's best for the kids? Your sex needs to take a fucking back seat.

I want the law to make sure that both men and women cannot abandon or abort their kids because they don't want to be bothered with them.

You want the GOVERNMENT to have that power. What the fuck kind of sicko are you? The GOVERNMENT. CPS. The CHILD TRAFFICKING ARM OF THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. That's not speculation, it's fact. Kids are MORE fucked up now that the government was voted to have a say in how people raised their kids.

You are a sick, sick fuck, and this is just another reason women should not be allowed to vote.

Both men and women need to take responsibility for their choices instead of running away like cowards. Abortion is cowardly as shit. Abandoning a baby is cowardly too. Neither should ever happen.

Let me spell this out for you as simply as I can.

NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE HERE HAVE I ARGUED THAT ABORTION IS GOOD, YOU STUPID, VAPID, MINDLESS, WHORE.

I stated that it is LEGAL, but you're TOO STUPID to actually read my words.

Yeah, and so is keeping your zipper closed instead of banging a woman you know is a slut, or one who is a stranger to you.

Last time.

It does not fucking matter how much you trust a woman if cash and prizes are written as bonuses BY LAW for screwing a man over. THAT is LITERALLY the only thing I'm arguing against here.

You require a court to protect you from or reward you for your own choice here too - aren't you the one who wants courts to make sure that no men have to pay child support?

You stupid, stupid bitch. You colossally stupid whore.

WITHOUT courts, what would happen? I DO NOT WANT COURTS INTERFERING WITH FAMILIES AT ALL.

The law ALREADY FORCES what would not happen naturally. The MEN would get EVERYTHING and the woman would be left with nothing.

You are so massively stupid, it's painful to even think a human could write such a thing.

Crensch ago

I'm advocating for the law to not punish men for trusting women. Not having a law that punishes men is NOT a punishment for women.

All YOU are advocating is for men to be forced by threat of government.

Get back in the kitchen, cunt.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

I'm advocating for the law to not punish men for trusting women.

Having to financially support a child that you helped conceive via consensual sex is not being "punished" for "trusting women", any more than making abortion illegal constitutes "punishing" women.

Again, I think that abortion should be illegal unless it is the only way to save the woman's life, or if the baby is so terminally diseased that if it survives birth it will die in pain. So it's not like I only think that men should have to take responsibility for the children they conceive. I think women should too. I don't think people should be able to fuck off and either abandon their own child or outright kill it - both are equally selfish and reprehensible.

If you are going to have sex with a woman and risk making a baby, you'd better make damn sure that she is trustworthy and that you are in a position where you can afford to provide for a child if she gets pregnant. Same goes for women - if you're going to have sex with a man and risk pregnancy, you'd better make damn sure that he is trustworthy and that you are in a position to provide for a child if you get pregnant. Both men and women need to be more careful about their sexual choices. We used to have stigma and social pressure to keep people in line and it worked way better than this current climate of abortions and "financial abortions" - there were fewer out-of-wedlock kids, for starters, and fewer moms who were single because they had fucked their life up rather than because they were widows.

All YOU are advocating is for men to be forced by threat of government.

No. What concerns me most is not what stupid, selfish, irresponsible adults want to do to rid themselves of the need to be accountable for the results of their shitty choices. What concerns me most is that children are not butchered in the womb before birth or abandoned by their worthless fathers after birth. You are advocating for the equivalent of abortion for men and I think it's pathetic. Deadbeat dads are pathetic.

Crensch ago

Having to financially support a child that you helped conceive via consensual sex is not being "punished" for "trusting women", any more than making abortion illegal constitutes "punishing" women.

Stupid whore. If a man has to financially support a child, that child is HIS, not hers. Period. She gets NO say in the child's upbringing, and the child lives with him.

Also, THE GOVERNMENT FORCING THIS is fucking wrong, and you're a sick fuck for wanting it.

Again, I think that abortion should be illegal unless it is the only way to save the woman's life,

Stupid argument. Chances of happening so astronomically small that there's no reason to litigate on it at all. Just let that one in 500million woman die.

Also, I'm NOT ARGUING FOR ABORTION HERE. You really are fucking stupid.

or if the baby is so terminally diseased that if it survives birth it will die in pain.

So you're pro-abortion? You think the government will just leave well enough alone? That it won't legalize for a gimp leg? Or for it being white (in the U.K., for instance)?

So it's not like I only think that men should have to take responsibility for the children they conceive. I think women should too. I don't think people should be able to fuck off and either abandon their own child or outright kill it - both are equally selfish and reprehensible.

You want the GOVERNMENT to step in and force this. Stupid, stupid, stupid cunt. Massively stupid cunt.

If you are going to have sex with a woman and risk making a baby, you'd better make damn sure that she is trustworthy and that you are in a position where you can afford to provide for a child if she gets pregnant. Same goes for women - if you're going to have sex with a man and risk pregnancy, you'd better make damn sure that he is trustworthy and that you are in a position to provide for a child if you get pregnant. Both men and women need to be more careful about their sexual choices. We used to have stigma and social pressure to keep people in line and it worked way better than this current climate of abortions and "financial abortions" - there were fewer out-of-wedlock kids, for starters, and fewer moms who were single because they had fucked their life up rather than because they were widows.

Now you're just rambling like a whore to try and obfuscate the shame you should be feeling for having been so dishonest. Some part of you knows you should admit you're wrong, but you're too cowardly for that.

You're arguing something that literally nobody else was addressing here, and you're too stupid to understand that.

THE LAW was the only thing I was arguing against. Re-read my words, if you have the reading comprehension ability to do so.

No. What concerns me most is not what stupid, selfish, irresponsible adults want to do to rid themselves of the need to be accountable for the results of their shitty choices. What concerns me most is that children are not butchered in the womb before birth or abandoned by their worthless fathers after birth.

Nobody gives a fuck what you think. This doesn't address a goddamn thing I've said. It's an argument against words I didn't speak, and a position I don't hold.

It's an admission that you haven't thought any of this through, and you're responding like a stupid woman would respond when she's trying to act like she knows something. Stupid. Stupid stupid stupid.

You are advocating for the equivalent of abortion for men and I think it's pathetic. Deadbeat dads are pathetic.

You're really, REALLY fucking stupid.

Show me where I advocated for this. Here, I'll quote my own words for you:

This is probably the stupidest thing I'll read today.

It's the law that forces men to finance sluts. It's the law that forces taxes to go to single moms. Take those away, and morality magically becomes fashionable again.

Or, you know, you could act like the virtue-signalling busybodies of the past 50 years and become repellent to the masses. Nobody wants to be told what they can't do by holier-than-thou faggots, whether on the left or the right.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

I think I would rather wait until after you've calmed down to talk to you. You're very emotional right now and obviously not up to the challenge of having a rational discussion. Perhaps by morning you will better have your feelings and your temper under control. Maybe give this a read. What I'm getting from your rather ridiculous screed is that you want there to be no laws whatsoever to protect children and ensure that their parents don't just fuck off and abandon them; you are pissed at women because they are able to take everything and leave a man with nothing; and you think what is better for everyone is if men can take everything and leave women with nothing. Whatever, bitch. It doesn't matter what you want to happen; that isn't how things work in society. Thank God for that because your version sounds even more shitty than the way it is now. At least now kids have at least a bit of protection, and deadbeat sacks of shit don't all just get to run away and abandon their kids.

xenoPsychologist ago

you think what is better for everyone is if men can take everything and leave women with nothing.

that wasnt said at all. liar.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

From this comment, right at the end:

"WITHOUT courts, what would happen? I DO NOT WANT COURTS INTERFERING WITH FAMILIES AT ALL.

The law ALREADY FORCES what would not happen naturally. The MEN would get EVERYTHING and the woman would be left with nothing."

From this comment:

(me speaking:) and you think what is better for everyone is if men can take everything and leave women with nothing.

(Crensch speaking:) It is. Objectively so.

....

So you're wrong.

xenoPsychologist ago

not quite. he didnt say that. you declared that it was his thought. he just agreed that it was better after the fact.

so... no you!

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

Oh for fuck's sake, are you seriously gonna turn this into "no YOU'RE wrong!" like some kind of child? You said one thing; I proved you wrong; fucking deal with it.

xenoPsychologist ago

you actually didnt, but you can be wrong if you like.

Crensch ago

Let's play a little game:

I'm going to quote my original comment, then I'm going to pick apart your first response, and we'll see who's being reasonable here.

This is probably the stupidest thing I'll read today.

It's the law that forces men to finance sluts. It's the law that forces taxes to go to single moms. Take those away, and morality magically becomes fashionable again.

Or, you know, you could act like the virtue-signalling busybodies of the past 50 years and become repellent to the masses. Nobody wants to be told what they can't do by holier-than-thou faggots, whether on the left or the right.

That's what I wrote. Now we'll analyze your response:

Maybe men shouldn't have sex with sluts then, or with any woman that they would not want to be the mother of their potential children.

  1. Who said that men should?

  2. What does it matter if they have sex with a potential mother if there are cash and prizes enticing the woman to screw him over?

  3. Taxes STILL go to single moms.

What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?

It's not like you guys have great birth control options, and the law isn't exactly on your side, so why take that risk?

  1. Women can write a man's name on a birth certificate and get money.

  2. Women can falsely accuse of rape.

  3. Women can take a man to court for watching her kids once and have a reasonable odds of getting child support

  4. Taxes STILL go to single moms.

What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?

If men are going to play a stupid game then they too deserve to win a stupid prize.

  1. They don't even have to play. They just have to be around, or have a name.

  2. Taxes STILL go to single moms.

What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?

The fault here is not only on women's shoulders; the men that slutty women are having sex with are also responsible for any kids that are conceived and for whatever fallout results.

  1. Who said it was? Who said they weren't?

  2. Who is going to hold them accountable? The government?

  3. Taxes STILL go to single moms.

What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?

They should've made better life choices.

  1. Again. Other than literally not having a name that can be written on a birth certificate, what choice? Even avoiding women entirely is near impossible with hiring quotas for businesses.

  2. Taxes STILL go to single moms.

What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?

You addressed exactly zero of my arguments. You made an emotional, anti-man diatribe that you thought would be received by a roomful of white knights nodding in agreement because they want what's between your legs.

Your mental faculties are woefully underdeveloped, and it's very obvious that your white knights don't care; the only value you have rests between your legs, and it's the only reason men accept you. If you were a man, you'd be the village idiot.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

Who said that men should?

You were talking about the law and how it "forces men to finance sluts". No man will ever have to pay child support to a slut if he did not have sex with her and help get her pregnant in the first place. The law is what it is right now, and so men need to be really careful about the choices they make so they won't find themselves in this situation. Your comment is like feminists screeching about rape culture - sure, it'd be nice if women didn't have to worry about their safety while drunk in public, but that's not the culture we have so women need to stay sober and be careful not to get themselves into a compromising position.

What does it matter if they have sex with a potential mother if there are cash and prizes enticing the woman to screw him over?

Because the majority of women are not going to be "enticed" to fuck a man over just because the law would probably side with them. Not every woman is a golddigging reprehensible whore.

Taxes STILL go to single moms.

Not sure what it's like in the US or wherever you live, but in Canada if you are a single father you can apply for the same government benefits - they are handed out based on income level and not gender.

Women can write a man's name on a birth certificate and get money.

If the man is actually the biological father of the child then maybe he should have to help pay for it. Why the fuck shouldn't he look after his own kid? and if he isn't the bio dad he generally will not be made to pay child support.

Women can falsely accuse of rape.

Yes they can and it's fucking horrific that it's as common as it is. What does this have to do with child support and alimony?

Women can take a man to court for watching her kids once and have a reasonable odds of getting child support

Really? Do you have a news story or something to demonstrate when this has actually happened?

They don't even have to play. They just have to be around, or have a name.

That mostly doesn't happen though, now does it?

Who said it was? Who said they weren't?

Your original post pretty strongly implied it!

Who is going to hold them accountable? The government?

The government also holds women accountable for abandoning or neglecting their kids too.

Again. Other than literally not having a name that can be written on a birth certificate, what choice?

Not having sex with a woman that you don't know and trust, for starters. Don't have hookups. Don't mess around with a slut.

Even avoiding women entirely is near impossible with hiring quotas for businesses.

Dude nobody is getting sued for child support by a coworker who writes their name randomly on the birth certificate. That isn't happening.

You made an emotional, anti-man diatribe

Oh for fuck's sake, have you been reading what you've been writing about women in general and me in particular? Fuck yourself.

Crensch ago

You were talking about the law and how it "forces men to finance sluts". No man will ever have to pay child support to a slut if he did not have sex with her and help get her pregnant in the first place.

Emphasis, mine.

Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong

Admit you're wrong before we go any further. You're deliberately trying to ram this through, you dishonest cunt.

I'll happily respond to the rest after you admit that you're full of shit on this one point.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

There are men who wind up paying child support for kids that aren't biologically theirs - I should have written my sentence more carefully. But it's a pretty small percentage of men - "Stupid argument. Chances of happening so astronomically small that there's no reason to litigate on it at all. Just let that one in 500million man pay." Whatever. Right? You don't give a fuck when we're talking about women being fucked over by a man, and you want society to return to the way it was when women had no legal rights to their own kids because you seem to think that's better, so why the hell should I care? You don't seem to give a shit about the opposite sex yet you berate me for allegedly not doing so myself. Your way is not substantially better for anyone except men. You don't seem to give a shit about anything else, including the kids.

Listen. Questions aside, I think we actually agree more than disagree. I think it's reprehensible to force a man to pay child support for a child that is not his if that isn't what he wants to do. If you're not the father there should be no strings attached. And if a man is biologically the father, making him pay more than he can afford is wrong. It should be a reasonable amount that still leaves him enough of his income to be financially solvent instead of making him work like a slave while the ex remarries. And fuck, if she gets with someone else then the child support should end because it's no longer needed...if she's going to find another "provider" to replace her kid's dad he should be off the hook. I think the way it's handled right now is in need of a serious overhaul.

The millennial generation is a perfect example of what happens when you vote to "protect the children". Trannies, fags, communists, sluts, and pedophiles are legitimized because "protect the children" also means "give women free money and let them raise their kids on their own".

The rise in all of these new "identities" is a result of Marxism - a political system which, by the way, was invented by a man and which predates women's voting rights by quite a few decades, and which historically was always put into power at the hands of men. These things are being pushed for by the Jews and by cultural Marxists and not just by women in general. For what it's worth I find the whole thing as horrific as you do. The whole "protect the kids" thing is a fucking lie that is being used by certain people in the government to justify slowly sexualizing children. If you look back at the last couple hundred years, you can see the way laws which were brought in to protect children in European countries actually did a lot of good in the long run. There are no more workhouses full of hollow-eyed kids anymore; most children are now literate, fed, and relatively healthy, and don't have to work all day long to keep from starving. There are other factors behind that besides just the legal system - the economy and the way society has changed through the development of technology has drastically changed the way we live and has made this possible. But the legal system has helped too.

"Protect the children" is also the mantra of gun-grabbers.

Oh I fucking hate it when they do that! Who the hell do they think is going to protect the kids - some unarmed retard who screams "stop! don't!" when someone is hurting people? It's never really about the kids when they say that; it's just an appeal to emotion so we won't object so strenuously when they steal our guns and violate our right to bear arms. It's bullshit. They don't care about kids.

We have the most fucked up children of any generation, of any civilization, in the history of ever. Tranny kids are featured in our entertainment media. It simply does NOT get more fucked up than that.

There is a very long and very detailed history of the ways in which different societies used underage boys and girls as sexual entertainment - kids being available in brothels, kids being sold and used as prostitutes, kids being sold as sex slaves. Apparently in the Weimar Republic, before Hitler rose to power, prostitution was so bad and so degenerate that you could have any age you wanted, or a mother with her child. It was fucked up and one of the things that propelled Hitler's rise - he wanted to clean up the streets and restore traditional morality. The Romans had their catamites; Muslim countries have a longstanding tradition of ladyboy whores. As tragic as it is to see transgendered kids becoming more common, as much as I long to strangle the parents of that poor little drag queen boy in Quebec, I wish we could say that this is something new. It's not. And as shitty as that is, as much abuse as kids sometimes endure in the foster care system, there are times and places where it has been worse and still is. We desperately need to make some changes though.

Sure. The man makes the money, and can afford the children. He's responsible enough to go work hard to provide for his family,

Wait, are we talking about the guys that have to be forced by law to provide for their family...? The ones that get a woman pregnant and then split? The ones who knocked up a slut? Doesn't sound all that responsible.

whereas the woman is not. Forcing him to fork over the money to a useless woman that cannot care for them herself is OBJECTIVELY worse. It's the man's money, it's the man's family.

Women also work. Women also make money. Her money, her family. This shit goes both ways. Women who are receiving child support are often working moms, not stay-home moms. She isn't living on his dime; she's making her own money.

84% of single parent families are headed by mothers

From that link: "Several studies have indicated that once economic factors are taken into account, children from single-mother families fare better than children from single-father families." Ruh roh.

Single parent families cause crime

No argument here. Kids need both parents. I'm not arguing in favour of single parenthood; I just don't see how a man taking the kids and leaving the woman with nothing is substantially different or better than a woman taking the kids and leaving a man with nothing. It's the same thing in the end: a broken home and broken kids.

"Further evidence indicated that fathers seem to fill stabilizing role in at-risk youth’s lives, protecting them from experiencing the negative influences of other contextual risks in their lives, such as violence and the presence of negative role models among peers and family members (Howard, Lefever, Borkowski, &Whitman, 2006)."

No argument there either. Of course this is true. Kids need their dads.

Dads good. Single moms bad.

Single dads bad too, at least according to that one link you sent me! Single parenthood is not ideal for anyone, not for the kids and not for the parents. I'm not defending single parenthood. I'm simply trying to defend the idea that if a man has a kid who is biologically his, he needs to look after his kid, and having a legal system to make him do so is not a bad thing. I keep talking about abortion because I want you to understand that I think the same needs to be true of women: if we have a kid, we need to look after that kid, and having the legal system there to keep women from having abortions or otherwise fucking off and abandoning their kid is not a bad thing. The legal system as it stands right now is NOT handling this issue properly - I agree with you on that! - however I don't think the solution is to scrap it entirely and let this become essentially a free-for-all.

Crensch ago

Part 2. And the absolute destruction of your illusion that single moms should ever have custody. Ever.

And as shitty as that is, as much abuse as kids sometimes endure in the foster care system, there are times and places where it has been worse and still is. We desperately need to make some changes though.

They are trafficked for organs and human consumption, too. Rituals that terrify them to insanity before killing them just for the adrenochrome.

Wait, are we talking about the guys that have to be forced by law to provide for their family...?

Yes.

The ones that get a woman pregnant and then split?

At least 70% of divorces initiated by the woman. Your argument doesn't bear out in reality very well.

The ones who knocked up a slut? Doesn't sound all that responsible.

Tell me how, exactly, one ensures he is not knocking up a slut. Tell me how, exactly, one ensures that what appears to be wife material actually is.

Marriages fail at an astounding rate for a reason, and arguing that it's a guy not being responsible is really disingenuous.

Women also work. Women also make money. Her money, her family. This shit goes both ways. Women who are receiving child support are often working moms, not stay-home moms. She isn't living on his dime; she's making her own money.

Take away hiring quotas and they won't. Almost invariably, they won't. The wage gap is a lie, but it shouldn't be. Women as a group do less work, take more breaks, and take more time off than men.

Every problem you have with my arguments is solved because my arguments are less governmental power in our lives.

From that link: "Several studies have indicated that once economic factors are taken into account, children from single-mother families fare better than children from single-father families." Ruh roh.

Oh dear, did I get one of those feminist articles by accident? "Once economic factors are taken into account" sounds suspiciously like fudging the numbers to me.

I have a mess of redpill information that I need to go through; I'll work my way through some of it tonight and hopefully find the studies I'm looking for.

Single mother kids commit more crime, have more mental illness, make less money as adults, are less reliable as adults, and have a high recidivism rate when they reproduce.

Single father kids come out only a little worse than 2-parent family kids. In fact, one of the other links specifically states this.

No argument here. Kids need both parents. I'm not arguing in favour of single parenthood; I just don't see how a man taking the kids and leaving the woman with nothing is substantially different or better than a woman taking the kids and leaving a man with nothing. It's the same thing in the end: a broken home and broken kids.

Again, one of my links addresses this. Single-father-raised kids are better by far than single-mother-raised kids.

No argument there either. Of course this is true. Kids need their dads.

It's more true of dads, and that's simply a fact.

Did you really read what you quoted there? I'll repost it:

"Further evidence indicated that fathers seem to fill stabilizing role in at-risk youth’s lives, protecting them from experiencing the negative influences of other contextual risks in their lives, such as violence and the presence of negative role models among peers and family members (Howard, Lefever, Borkowski, &Whitman, 2006)."

Stabilizing, protecting from negative role models and violence. That's a study, not some feminist article.

Single dads bad too

False equivalence. Hugely false.

Yes, not great, but infinitely better than single moms. Period.

at least according to that one link you sent me!

Oh, I remember why I chose that link - and it was for the feminist admission of the percentage of single-parent families. Had I known it had something stupid like:

"Yet single mothers have been reported to have warmer and more structured relationships with their children than do single fathers."

... I wouldn't have linked it.

What horseshit. More structured than a father? Warmer? You mean the cool "friend" mom that ruins their kids because she acts like a cool friend instead of a mother?

Yeah, my bad for presenting that piece of shit.

First comment:

The author of the is article has very little understanding of the actual research. Even a remedial review of the literature would have found overwhelming statistical evidence that children in the custody of single fathers fare much better than those in the custody of single mothers. This is despite the fact that the father often gets custody because the child exhibits discipline problems beyond the mother's control.

Fifth comment:

"children from single-mother families fare better than children from single-father families."

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.

70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes.

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in fatherless homes.

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:

20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders

9 times more likely to drop out of high school

10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances

9 times more likely to end up in state operated institutions

20 times more likely to end up in prison

10 times more likely to commit rape ... and

32 times more likely to run away from home

source

Oh, joy. There was a silver lining in presenting that piece of shit.

With that, your argument that single mothers should ever have custody is shot to hell.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

Yes. The ones that get a woman pregnant and then split? At least 70% of divorces initiated by the woman. Your argument doesn't bear out in reality very well.

Usually when a man splits because she got pregnant, they aren't married. These are two different issues. I'm not saying that women don't ever take off because that happens too. I'm also not saying that women are innocent - there is a world of difference between divorcing your husband because he is abusing you/the kids or can't keep his dick in his pants, and divorcing him because you "aren't happy anymore". Getting out of a dangerous situation is reasonable. Bailing because you're bored and unwilling to put in the effort to make things good is bullshit.

Tell me how, exactly, one ensures he is not knocking up a slut. Tell me how, exactly, one ensures that what appears to be wife material actually is.

Don't have sex with a woman you don't know...no hookups, no booty calls. None of that degenerate shit. Take the time to get to know a woman as a friend for a while before you start having sex or dating. Get to know her hobbies, her tastes in music and food, her friends, her political and social views, her stance on religion, how she feels about things like marriage, kids, abortion, traditional values. Don't just listen to what she says - observe what she does. Listen to how she talks about her exes and pay attention to what her friends are like (if they're vapid whores then she probably is too). Is she a feminist? How does she feel about patriarchy and men and women's rights? These are important things to learn. Just take some time on it. That way you will have an idea what sort of person she is and whether you even actually want to be with her romantically, or whether your initial feelings were just because she's hot and you want to get in her pants. You'd be surprised how much easier it is to get to know someone when there is no pressure to play the role of boyfriend/girlfriend. My husband and I were good friends for a year before he asked me out, and by the time he did we were both very sure that we wanted to be together. We knew we were a good match. People rush into relationships these days and prioritize sex and chemistry over friendship and knowing one another - I think that's why so many marriages are so fucked. People treat relationships like fast food...instant gratification! don't wait! scratch that itch! It's fucked up.

There is no guarantee that no man will ever find himself at the mercy of a dishonest bitch if he takes his time to get to know her first. Sadly, shitty people tend to hide their shittiness sometimes until the other person is entangled with them and the relationship is committed. This is how abusers operate too...they rein it in until the other person is "trapped" before letting loose. But I do think that if you don't sleep around, and if you take the time to get to know someone well before things ever turn romantic or sexual, it can greatly reduce your chances of getting fucked over. Notice how the divorce rate was a lot lower when this kind of approach was very common, as was the rate of single motherhood and teenage pregnancy.

Take away hiring quotas and they won't. Almost invariably, they won't.

Women don't only get hired because of quotas. Amazingly, some women get hired because they are actually the most qualified person for the job!

The wage gap is a lie, but it shouldn't be. Women as a group do less work, take more breaks, and take more time off than men.

The wage gap isn't a lie, per se; people misunderstand why it exists. It isn't because of discrimination. It's because women take more time off than men and choose to go into less lucrative fields than men; women are in general less interested in putting in the 80+ hour work week required to reach the loftiest position in a company; and women are less inclined to negotiate for a raise. There is a small gap but the lie is that it's because of institutionalized sexism.

Single mother kids commit more crime, have more mental illness, make less money as adults, are less reliable as adults, and have a high recidivism rate when they reproduce. Single father kids come out only a little worse than 2-parent family kids. In fact, one of the other links specifically states this.

I looked but couldn't find that. I can definitely see how having a father in their life would keep them out of trouble. I'm a good mom, but I can never be a good dad. My husband is a good dad though, and the kids really need his influence and strength. There's a kid who lives up the street from us...her parents are deadbeats and her grandma is raising her. For a while, grandma's former husband was living with them, and as much as he was kind of a bastard, he protected this kid wonderfully. Now he's moved out and there is a steady stream of riffraff blowing through that house, and the kid is no longer safe. So yes, dads to keep kids out of trouble far more effectively than single moms.

False equivalence. Hugely false.

I wasn't saying it because I think fathers and mothers are equivalent. We aren't. I see every day how that plays out in my own family; the more redpilled we become the greater differences I see in our respective roles of mother and father, of wife and husband, of woman and man. No, I was saying that because kids also really do need the influence of a good mother in their lives too, and even though single fathers do a better job at keeping their kids out of crime, it is still better for kids to be raised with both a mom and a dad together under one roof. Single parenthood is, in general, bad for kids. Hence "single fathers bad too".

According to University of Minnesota Sociology Professor Emeritus, Starke Hathaway, Author of Adolescent Personality and Behavior, the delinquency rate of children living with mothers to those living with fathers is 28.67 to .42 for boys and 18.19 to 0 for girls.

You realize that this means that 71.33% of boys raised by single mothers do not fall into delinquency, yes? And that 81.81 of girls raised by single moms don't fall into delinquency either.

"With that, your argument that single mothers should ever have custody is shot to hell." Well no. Not really. It looks to me like the majority of single moms manage to keep their kids out of crime, if I'm reading these numbers right.

I don't think single parenthood is ideal for anyone, regardless of whether the kids are male or female. But I don't agree that no woman should ever be given custody of her own kids; it would appear that the majority of them are able to do a good enough job. I would love to see these statistics broken down by race - I wonder if kids raised by a single white mom fare better than kids raised by a single black mom, for example, and if it's possible that one race has dragged down the average more than the other.

Crensch ago

Usually when a man splits because she got pregnant, they aren't married.

All right, are we talking about niggers, now?

there is a world of difference between divorcing your husband because he is abusing you/the kids or can't keep his dick in his pants, and divorcing him because you "aren't happy anymore".

The former happens far less than they want you to believe, and the latter happens far more than they want you to believe.

As for keeping his dick in his pants, women cheat many times more often than the men do.

Getting out of a dangerous situation is reasonable. Bailing because you're bored and unwilling to put in the effort to make things good is bullshit.

Should've picked husband material, amirite?

Take the time to get to know a woman as a friend for a while before you start having sex or dating. Get to know her hobbies, her tastes in music and food, her friends, her political and social views, her stance on religion, how she feels about things like marriage, kids, abortion, traditional values. Don't just listen to what she says - observe what she does.

Don't marry a man that will end up beating you, or cheating on you. Totally doable with roughly the same ideas, right?

Notice how the divorce rate was a lot lower when this kind of approach was very common, as was the rate of single motherhood and teenage pregnancy.

You mean when women still hadn't voted in free cash and prizes for reining it in, then trapping a man? Good times.

Women don't only get hired because of quotas. Amazingly, some women get hired because they are actually the most qualified person for the job!

Very, very few. Everyone knows it, too.

The wage gap isn't a lie, per se; people misunderstand why it exists. It isn't because of discrimination. It's because women take more time off than men and choose to go into less lucrative fields than men

It is a lie. It's presented as unequal pay for equal work.

Women almost invariably do not work as hard as their male counterparts, which is why they SHOULD be paid less for the hours they put in.

You realize that this means that 71.33% of boys raised by single mothers do not fall into delinquency, yes?

Jesus tittyfucking christ, woman.

Re-write that like so:

"You realize that this means that 28.77% of boys raised by single mothers fall into delinquency, yes?"

That is the DEFINITION of societal cancer.

And that 81.81 of girls raised by single moms don't fall into delinquency either.

I'll let you do the math there. Nearly 20% females and 30% males. Un. Fucking. Real.

Well no. Not really. It looks to me like the majority of single moms manage to keep their kids out of crime, if I'm reading these numbers right.

If the numbers above look good to you, I posit that you lack the requisite discernment to be taken seriously.

I don't think single parenthood is ideal for anyone, regardless of whether the kids are male or female. But I don't agree that no woman should ever be given custody of her own kids; it would appear that the majority of them are able to do a good enough job.

That's like saying a majority of Muslims are peaceful. Or the majority of niggers in middle-upper class are good people, when they still have much higher rates of violent crime than poor whites.

I would love to see these statistics broken down by race - I wonder if kids raised by a single white mom fare better than kids raised by a single black mom, for example, and if it's possible that one race has dragged down the average more than the other.

You might be onto something, except for the fact that even if niggers showed a bigger difference there, it would still suggest that a similar effect happens to whites.

If it was only whites in this country, and, say, 10% of children raised by single moms were degenerates, and 1% for single dads, you'd still have societal cancer there, despite the crime rate being so low that as we are now, we'd think it a paradise.

At some point that crimerate would normalize, and we'd see the damage caused by single moms to 1 out of every 10 kids. Unacceptable. If the father is around, he should get them, period.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

women cheat many times more often than the men do.

Proof...? Source?

Don't marry a man that will end up beating you, or cheating on you. Totally doable with roughly the same ideas, right?

Nobody is guaranteed anything, but I firmly believe that your odds of success are greatest when you take it slow, get to know the person as a friend for a while before dating, and don't have sex until you two know and love each other and are committed to the relationship. Whether you're a man or woman, your odds of success are highest when you take your time.

You mean when women still hadn't voted in free cash and prizes for reining it in, then trapping a man? Good times.

Women had been voting for decades already by then, and yet somehow society was still good. Amazing! It's almost as if the current mess is a result of more than just the female vote!

Very, very few. Everyone knows it, too.

This is a logical fallacy. "Everyone knows it" is as irrelevant as it is untrue. Do you have any proof that women are only really hired because of quotas and not because they are the best person for the job?

Re-write that like so: "You realize that this means that 28.77% of boys raised by single mothers fall into delinquency, yes?" That is the DEFINITION of societal cancer.

The majority of single moms manage to keep their kids out of trouble. If you are a single mom your odds of success are better than your odds of failure. If you had a 71% chance of winning the lottery you would buy a lottery ticket, wouldn't you? I don't think it's ideal for kids to be raised by a single parent. But I also don't think that painting all single mothers with the same brush is reasonable. Why are you so keen on ignoring the fact that the majority of single mothers raise their kids well?

If the numbers above look good to you, I posit that you lack the requisite discernment to be taken seriously.

If you are happy to dismiss the majority of single moms - who manage to keep their kids out of trouble - because it gets in the way of your scorn, then perhaps you are the one not to be taken seriously. You are dismissing facts and reality because you'd rather stick with your own opinions and I can't respect that at all.

I'll let you do the math there. Nearly 20% females and 30% males. Un. Fucking. Real.

Single parenthood is not good for kids; being raised in a two-parent heterosexual home is ideal. But we aren't talking about that. You said that no woman should ever get custody of the kids, but the only way you can hold that position is if you ignore the 71% whose kids stay out of trouble. Why should those moms not be permitted to care for their kids when the evidence demonstrates that they are doing a good job a

If the father is around, he should get them, period.

What if he's not? What if he doesn't want them? What if he is abusive or an addict? Who should get the kids then?

Crensch ago

Let's take this a step further.

You're a young mom, and you want what's best for your kid. You and your husband divorce.

Would you fight for custody of your kid knowing those statistics?

If you would, I posit that you don't actually care about your kid.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

What I would do would depend entirely on why we divorced.

Crensch ago

Stats don't care about your reasons.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

And they don't care about your feelings. You can call single moms as many names as you want; you can shout to the heavens that none of them should ever be given custody; that does not change the fact that, in spite of the disadvantages and pitfalls of broken homes in general, a full 71% of kids raised by single moms do not fall into crime. They have a 71% success rate in spite of all your words and opinions. Sorry but I'm gonna have to go with the numbers on this one.

Crensch ago

a full 71% of kids raised by single moms do not fall into crime.

You're arguing for literally the worst possible outcome inside a home.

Sorry but I'm gonna have to go with the numbers on this one.

Yeah. Let's.

Single dad: .5 something delinquency in males, ZERO in females

Single mom: ~29% males, ~18% females

Numbers. Feelings. You don't give a shit about the kids or society as a whole.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

I'm done talking to you about this now. You are so obsessed with your ideas that you won't see reality. You won't face the fact that fatherlessness is as much the fault of deadbeat men fucking off as it is the fault of women who push good men away. You really don't seem to understand how families work and what kids need. Many of your arguments are based on a faulty premise. You struggle to get your arguments up off the first tier of the debate pyramid. This discussion is going nowhere. And because I can see that reality does not mirror your ideas or values, no matter what you think or say, I see no point in continuing. You have your views; reality, history, and statistics tell another story. I prefer to side with reality when confronted by a person who wants me to reject it and accept their opinions instead.

Good luck in your life.

Crensch ago

I'm done talking to you about this now. You are so obsessed with your ideas that you won't see reality. You won't face the fact that fatherlessness is as much the fault of deadbeat men fucking off as it is the fault of women who push good men away.

I knew I'd find this at some point.

Every. Single. Ounce. Of. Your. Position. Is. Wrong.

Crensch ago

I'll take that as the cowardly woman's way of admitting she would force 29% of kids into being fucked up, useless sacks of shit because mommy.

Top kek.

Crensch ago

The majority of single moms manage to keep their kids out of trouble.

Read that line above again. Read it.

If you are a single mom your odds of success are better than your odds of failure.

Absolutely irrelevant.

If you had a 71% chance of winning the lottery you would buy a lottery ticket, wouldn't you?

Stupid comparison. What about a 29% chance of Allahu Akbaring? Would you take that lottery ticket then?

I don't think it's ideal for kids to be raised by a single parent. But I also don't think that painting all single mothers with the same brush is reasonable.

"Not all Muslims", amirite?

Why are you so keen on ignoring the fact that the majority of single mothers raise their kids well?

Why do you hate healthy societies so much that you defend single mothers as a viable choice over almost literally any male relative?

If you are happy to dismiss the majority of single moms - who manage to keep their kids out of trouble - because it gets in the way of your scorn, then perhaps you are the one not to be taken seriously. You are dismissing facts and reality because you'd rather stick with your own opinions and I can't respect that at all.

If you are happy to dismiss the fact that ~25% of kids are FUCKED when raised by single moms - because it gets in the way of your feefees, then you're definitely the one not to be taken seriously.

One out of 4. 1/4. 25% FUCKED because you don't care.

Women should not vote.

Single parenthood is not good for kids

You took the time to calculate the percentage of kids single moms raise well - do that for the fathers with the same stats I gave you.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

What if he's not? What if he doesn't want them? What if he is abusive or an addict? Who should get the kids then?

Literally any male relative or couple that are together.

Hell, the streets might be better for the kids at that rate.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

Read that line above again. Read it.

Your words don't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. Your scorn, your insults, none of that matters. What matters to me is the numbers. And the numbers indicate that most single moms do not raise criminals. Yes, being raised by a mom and dad is ideal and kids do the best that way; and yes, single fathers do a better job at keeping their kids out of trouble. But I am not going to throw the 71% of single moms who raise good kids under the bus because of the 28% who do not.

Why do you hate healthy societies so much that you defend single mothers as a viable choice over almost literally any male relative?

Why do you hate women so much that you think that a distant male relative would be better at raising a woman's kids than she is? At any rate, this is not a legitimate argument; it's just another fallacy to add to the list.

Hell, the streets might be better for the kids at that rate.

LOL yeah because 71% of homeless kids are leading such healthy lives and turn into such well-adjusted adults. Fucking hell you're retarded. Don't let facts stand in the way of your ideas!

Crensch ago

But I am not going to throw the 71% of single moms who raise good kids under the bus because of the 28% who do not.

What would it take? Is there any point you'd draw the line? Is 1/3 not enough? Is 1/4? What about 1/2? More?

Where would you draw that line to decide that single moms are bad?

How can you not look at that line and think it a decent litmus test for how much one cares about kids?

Crensch ago

This is just too insane. Too utterly fucking insane.

And the numbers indicate that most single moms do not raise criminals.

With the number YOU are using, 29%. That's astronomical. That's insane.

Yes, being raised by a mom and dad is ideal and kids do the best that way; and yes, single fathers do a better job at keeping their kids out of trouble.

Almost infinitely better. Less than a percent delinquency if memory serves.

But I am not going to throw the 71% of single moms who raise good kids under the bus because of the 28% who do not.

They shouldn't be allowed to try anymore. Kudos to the ones who did, but giving a kid 2/3 chance to not be fucked up is apparently acceptable to you.

And you accuse me of not caring about the children.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

With the number YOU are using, 29%. That's astronomical. That's insane.

Yep. But the overwhelming majority - 71% - should not have their rights to their own children stripped away because of these women. Furthermore, given that the problem is fatherlessness, why do you still continue to ignore the fact that at least some of the responsibility for these 29% of kids lies squarely at the feet of fathers who are clearly not doing their job? Until you address that, the discussion can't continue.

giving a kid 2/3 chance to not be fucked up is apparently acceptable to you.

So I guess the whole "the needs of the kids matters less than the needs of adults and society in general" isn't really what you think, eh, given that you are advocating stripping adult mothers (you know, members of society?) of their right to raise their own kids because "think of the children!" You are talking out of both sides of your mouth now - you've contradicted yourself here.

Crensch ago

Furthermore, given that the problem is fatherlessness, why do you still continue to ignore the fact that at least some of the responsibility for these 29% of kids lies squarely at the feet of fathers who are clearly not doing their job?

And why do you ignore the fact that 70% of divorces are initiated by women? So *at best ~10%.

And honestly, hand the kids off to a fucking family friend or neighbor if they'll take 'em.

29% fucked because you have feelings for single mothers.

So I guess the whole "the needs of the kids matters less than the needs of adults and society in general" isn't really what you think, eh, given that you are advocating stripping adult mothers (you know, members of society?) of their right to raise their own kids because "think of the children!"

"and society in general"

The woman has no NEED to raise her kid, it's a privilege if she has it. The CHILD has a NEED to be raised by someone that doesn't have a 29% chance of fucking them up.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

And why do you ignore the fact that 70% of divorces are initiated by women?

I didn't. We already talked about that, remember? I even said that divorcing a man because of unhappiness is bullshit. Go back and look.

You are dodging and weaving like you're George Foreman. You still have yet to address fatherlessness. You acknowledge that lack of a father in their lives messes up these kids but you still absolutely refuse to talk about the fathers who are absent. So I will ask it one last time: do you think that fathers have any responsibility for the damage done to their kids when they are not involved in their lives? You blame single mothers for the damage but the problem is fatherlessness - where the fuck are these fathers? Why don't you want to talk about the ones who fuck off because the don't want to be a father?

The woman has no NEED to raise her kid, it's a privilege if she has it.

I am surprised that I continue to be surprised at the depths of ignorance you display about human nature in general. Kids don't only need dads; they also need moms. Why do you think children fare best when raised with both a mom and a dad? It's not just because of the dad. It's also because of the mom. Do you know what my role as mother does for my children? I am the pattern for my daughter regarding how to behave properly as a woman - what female nature is, how to sharpen its strengths and gifts and how to be aware of and restrain the weaknesses. I am showing her how to be a wife, a mother, a sister, a friend, a woman. I'm here to guide her and be a good example for her and to make sure she doesn't wind up one of those bitchy "mean girl" types. I set the example for her where men are concerned: how to interact with them respectfully, how to treat your husband right. And I am a pattern for my son as well...the way I treat him and his father is an example to him of what it means to be loved by a woman, what to expect from the opposite sex, what marriage should look like, what respect looks like. Good or bad, I am his first and foundational pattern for the way he will one day interact with girls and women once he is old enough to begin dating. My goal is to be the kind of woman my daughter can emulate and the kind of wife my son will one day want to find. I can't be everything to them that my husband can be because I'm not a man, but he can't be what I can be either because he's not a woman. They need his strength, his discipline, his ferocious power - he is not a man to be fucked with, and they know it, and that's good for them. I can't be that. But he can't be a womanly influence either. They need both. They need both. My kids would not be better off with just their dad raising them, just like they wouldn't be better off with just me raising them.

And this isn't because I'm some kind of freakin' unicorn; this is well-established stuff. Kids need both. I don't know why you seem to think mothers are trivial and that we have no rights to the little people we spent nine months growing and then many more months breastfeeding, but you are quite simply wrong. Thank God the law doesn't agree with you.

Crensch ago

Your words don't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. Your scorn, your insults, none of that matters. What matters to me is the numbers.

But not here, apparently: "What I would do would depend entirely on why we divorced."

Why do you hate women so much that you think that a distant male relative would be better at raising a woman's kids than she is? At any rate, this is not a legitimate argument; it's just another fallacy to add to the list.

Because men have a better record when raising children. Period.

LOL yeah because 71% of homeless kids are leading such healthy lives and turn into such well-adjusted adults. Fucking hell you're retarded. Don't let facts stand in the way of your ideas!

I said might.

And at 25% fail rate with mothers, something so severe is on the table.

And fucking hell, you're using 71%, so you think a 29% fail rate is acceptable. ~1/3. One. Fucking. Third.

... and you still try to slip moral grandstanding into your words.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

But not here, apparently: "What I would do would depend entirely on why we divorced."

Statistically I have a greater chance of falling into the 71% success rate than into the 28% failure rate. I do not share your opinion that a 28% failure rate means no woman is fit to raise her own child; you may write me off but that doesn't mean I would. Furthermore, you still have yet to address what role fathers play in these delinquent kids - after all, the problem here is FATHERLESSNESS. So where the fuck are the fathers? Why aren't they doing their part to ensure their kids don't fall into crime? Maybe they are the ones at fault here after all instead of mothers.

I said might.

Yes, well, your meaning was pretty obvious. Don't pretend you weren't making an implication.

And fucking hell, you're using 71%, so you think a 29% fail rate is acceptable. ~1/3. One. Fucking. Third.

How many more fucking times do I have to say that I don't think single parenthood is good for kids before you get it through your thick skull? I have explained this a number of times and you refuse to listen to what I'm saying; all you can do is repeatedly have knee-jerk reactions to the strawmen you keep setting up. Fuck, it's like trying to have a discussion with the stupid fembot basic bitches over on Reddit...people like you are why I left that site. You can't be objective. You can't read what's written. You just have a meltdown.

Crensch ago

How many more fucking times do I have to say that I don't think single parenthood is good for kids before you get it through your thick skull?

THE DIFFERENCE WITH A MAN AND WOMAN AND JUST A MAN IS NEGLIGIBLE, YOU STUPID CUNT.

And single moms fuck up at a rate of 1 in 3.

Admit that single fathers are FAR, FAR, FAR superior to single mothers.

Statistically I have a greater chance of falling into the 71% success rate than into the 28% failure rate.

Statistically a nigger has a greater chance of not killing you if you walk down their street at night.

Wanna go take a walk?

I do not share your opinion that a 28% failure rate means no woman is fit to raise her own child; you may write me off but that doesn't mean I would.

Let's play a game:

You have to write a law about single parents. This law either states that the father gets custody, or the mother. In all cases. No exceptions.

Which do you choose?

If you had an ounce of sense, you'd go with the fathers, since the difference between them and a 2-parent home is INSIGNIFICANT.

Furthermore, you still have yet to address what role fathers play in these delinquent kids - after all, the problem here is FATHERLESSNESS. So where the fuck are the fathers?

Often removed from homes and their children by the courts because feefees. And the PROBLEM is SINGLE MOMS. Hand the kids off to a male relative or friend.

Yes, well, your meaning was pretty obvious. Don't pretend you weren't making an implication.

I usually don't make mistakes with my words. At 1/3 fail rate, even options like that need to be considered.

I have explained this a number of times and you refuse to listen to what I'm saying; all you can do is repeatedly have knee-jerk reactions to the strawmen you keep setting up. Fuck, it's like trying to have a discussion with the stupid fembot basic bitches over on Reddit...people like you are why I left that site. You can't be objective. You can't read what's written. You just have a meltdown.

I'm telling you what's best for the kids, society, men, AND women, by pointing out that single moms are a CANCER on society, and you want to lump single dads in with it because feelings. The stats don't lie.

If you want those kids to have the best chance, the father needs custody. If you don't have a father, a grandparent, or other family member. I'm probably not kidding about handing them off to a family friend.

29%

Tell me where you'd draw the line before you'd kick single moms to the curb.

39%?

49%?

Let's just go with an overarching "this is how it's going to be". Single moms, or some home with a man in it.

59%?

Tell me where you'd draw that line.

Crensch ago

There are men who wind up paying child support for kids that aren't biologically theirs - I should have written my sentence more carefully.

That wasn't so hard, now was it? Really, you deserve some respect for this, but only a little. It took you this long to finally admit you were wrong about something, and you've been wrong a LOT.

Whatever. Right? You don't give a fuck when we're talking about women being fucked over by a man, and you want society to return to the way it was when women had no legal rights to their own kids because you seem to think that's better, so why the hell should I care?

Right. Because that's how society worked. At a conservative estimate, women initiate 70% of divorces. Who killed the family?

Women did. Because they had the option to trade in for free license to ride the cock carousel and free money from the ex husband.

If you remove the financial benefits of doing so, take a wild guess as to what would happen.

You don't seem to give a shit about the opposite sex yet you berate me for allegedly not doing so myself. Your way is not substantially better for anyone except men. You don't seem to give a shit about anything else, including the kids.

I berate you for being a stupid cunt. You are stupid, but even more to the point, you're acutely ignorant of the realities of the situation.

Better for men, who built civilizations, is better for everyone. Period. Women were given the vote, and where they have the most power, the societies collapse.

I give more of a fuck about the kids than you do, apparently, because I take the time to adjust my views based on new information. Kids are healthier in a 1950s style society than they are in the current society.

Listen. Questions aside, I think we actually agree more than disagree. I think it's reprehensible to force a man to pay child support for a child that is not his if that isn't what he wants to do.

We agree once again.

If you're not the father there should be no strings attached. And if a man is biologically the father, making him pay more than he can afford is wrong.

MAKING him pay is wrong.

Explain to me exactly how you would structure a governmental law/rule system that wouldn't devolve into giving women free shit from men.

Seriously. Break that one down for me. How do you prevent beta cucks from handing shit over to women, or litigating free cash and prizes for them if they screw men over?

And fuck, if she gets with someone else then the child support should end because it's no longer needed...if she's going to find another "provider" to replace her kid's dad he should be off the hook. I think the way it's handled right now is in need of a serious overhaul.

Better than the current situation, but that's just kicking the can down the road.

The rise in all of these new "identities" is a result of Marxism - a political system which, by the way, was invented by a man and which predates women's voting rights by quite a few decades, and which historically was always put into power at the hands of men.

It was invented by a Jew, and PART of that plan was pushing for women's rights. I wonder why? Is it because women vote in ways that will destroy their own societies? Yes. Yes it is.

These things are being pushed for by the Jews and by cultural Marxists and not just by women in general.

At least you're redpilled there. Jewish males are not men, though, and they're certainly not human. They cannot even build their own civilizations - they're parasites.

For what it's worth I find the whole thing as horrific as you do. The whole "protect the kids" thing is a fucking lie that is being used by certain people in the government to justify slowly sexualizing children.

And yet you want men forced to pay for kids because of the children. You want to hand power to your government to protect children.

The government responsible for public "schools" and CPS. I already mentioned what CPS really is - can you honestly say that I'm the one that doesn't care about children here?

If you look back at the last couple hundred years, you can see the way laws which were brought in to protect children in European countries actually did a lot of good in the long run. There are no more workhouses full of hollow-eyed kids anymore; most children are now literate, fed, and relatively healthy, and don't have to work all day long to keep from starving.

If you look back at the last couple hundred years, you can see the way laws which were brought in to protect children in European countries actually did a lot of good in the long run. There are no more workhouses full of hollow-eyed kids anymore; most children are now literate, fed, and relatively healthy, and don't have to work all day long to keep from starving.

There are certain protections I'm not prepared to do away with, but those are protections aimed at predatory businesses, not forcing action on an adult at the point of a gun.

There are other factors behind that besides just the legal system - the economy and the way society has changed through the development of technology has drastically changed the way we live and has made this possible. But the legal system has helped too.

No, the legal system has been a hindrance at almost every stage. Copyright laws, DMCA, TSA, Corporpate personhood, frivolous litigation...

Oh I fucking hate it when they do that! Who the hell do they think is going to protect the kids - some unarmed retard who screams "stop! don't!" when someone is hurting people? It's never really about the kids when they say that; it's just an appeal to emotion so we won't object so strenuously when they steal our guns and violate our right to bear arms. It's bullshit. They don't care about kids.

You seem so damn reasonable all of a sudden with some things. Look at your argument about me not caring for the kids, then look at what the gun grabbers are doing.

There is a very long and very detailed history of the ways in which different societies used underage boys and girls as sexual entertainment - kids being available in brothels, kids being sold and used as prostitutes, kids being sold as sex slaves.

We have kids taking HRT on billboards and TV shows. Having their parts chopped off or constructed. And this is heralded as virtuous, and a thing to be emulated.

Apparently in the Weimar Republic, before Hitler rose to power, prostitution was so bad and so degenerate that you could have any age you wanted, or a mother with her child. It was fucked up and one of the things that propelled Hitler's rise - he wanted to clean up the streets and restore traditional morality.

Truth.

Continued on next one - character limit.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

Because that's how society worked.

It didn't work for everyone which is why there was such a push to change things.

Who killed the family?

Jews.

Better for men, who built civilizations, is better for everyone

I don't agree, and I don't see evidence from history that this is true either. All we have done is spend a century swinging from one extreme, where men's sexuality could be largely unrestrained without consequence and where they had all the rights to the children and could take them and leave the woman in the dirt with nothing, to another extreme where women can have abortions without the father's consent, where family court swings in favour of women, etc. The fact that this current extreme is also shitty doesn't mean that the fix is to return to the previous extreme. Neither one of these is balanced and neither one is universally good for everyone. As is usually the case, I suspect that something in between these two extremes would be better for everyone...a state in which both men and women have social pressure encouraging them to restrain their sexuality and look after their children, and where the priority is ensuring that kids aren't being aborted or abandoned.

Kids are healthier in a 1950s style society than they are in the current society.

If we could find a way to make society into the best parts of 1950s family life, where the norm is dad putting in his 40-hour work week while mom stays home and takes care of their four or five kids and keeps a tidy house, fuck yeah, that would be awesome - sign me up! I've been doing that for almost 15 years already and it's fuckin' awesome. And it absolutely does make for healthier and happier kids...I see the difference between my kids and the friends they've made in town here that come from broken homes or homes where the parents don't give a shit, and it's honestly so sad. I agree with you here that the way things are currently done is not ideal; i just don't agree that the fix is to dial it back to the other extreme end of the spectrum where men had all the rights and women had none.

MAKING him pay is wrong. Explain to me exactly how you would structure a governmental law/rule system that wouldn't devolve into giving women free shit from men.

I would say that, first of all, the woman's finances should be taken into account. Is she able to find a job that enables her to provide for her kid's needs? Is she able to make ends meet? I think it's wrong to make a man fork over hundreds or thousands each month when there is no genuine need on the other end. I would also say that the money should go directly into a special account that can only be used for the child's needs, or be measured out in a format like food stamps so that it can only possibly be spent on school supplies or clothes or lessons or something that the child needs to keep women from spending it on themselves. The father's income level should also be a factor - if he barely has enough money to provide for himself then he should never be compelled to give more than he can spare. And along with child support should be better visitation rights for fathers. Every other weekend is bullshit. Kids need more time with their dads and dads need more time with their kids. And if the father is the one awarded primary custody then the mother should be the one dealing with child support payments, and the same regulations should apply. If the primary custodial parent takes up a new relationship, child support should end when the financial need ends, while visitation rights remain the same.

This is just off the top of my head...I hope it's at least coherent. I'm recovering from a massive blood loss and in truth I've been finding that the lack of oxygen to my brain lately has made writing harder than it normally is, which is also why my replies are slow in coming. The gist of this is that instead of child support being something punitive it needs to serve the purpose of just ensuring that the child's needs are being met and should only last as long as the need continues, and it should never be more than the kid needs or than the other parent can provide without being driven into poverty.

It was invented by a Jew, and PART of that plan was pushing for women's rights. I wonder why? Is it because women vote in ways that will destroy their own societies? Yes. Yes it is.

I don't think that's why. I think they pushed for women's rights because they wanted more wage slaves to tax. I don't think it was because they knew how women would vote. How would the have known that? Women had never had the vote before, and before they did there were a lot of women who opposed it because they didn't want the responsibilities and expectations that came with it.

Furthermore, I think a lot of people in general truly don't understand how leftist voting will eventually destroy a country, men as well as women. Ever talked to a leftist guy before? They don't have a fucking clue.

The government responsible for public "schools"

Oh fuck, public schools are the worst. I wish we could go back to the days of one-room schoolhouses because that was the only way public education ever really worked well, and it was much harder for students to wind up indoctrinated into liberal propaganda. I think everyone who can should homeschool their kids.

No, the legal system has been a hindrance at almost every stage. Copyright laws, DMCA, TSA, Corporpate personhood, frivolous litigation...

In some ways it has helped, but you're very right - we have way too many laws and way too much government involvement in many areas of life, right down to our recreation. Did you know that you can actually lose your driver's license in Canada if you get caught driving a boat on a lake while drinking? How fucking retarded is that?? Too much government. There are some ways in which having a legal system is useful but it definitely goes too far.

We have kids taking HRT on billboards and TV shows. Having their parts chopped off or constructed. And this is heralded as virtuous, and a thing to be emulated.

I know. It kills me. They are being turned into homunculi to the thunderous applause of a small demographic of mentally ill deviants. Most trans kids will grow out of it once they're through puberty. Someone needs to tell these perverts to just leave Britney alone already.

Crensch ago

It didn't work for everyone which is why there was such a push to change things.

The amount of people it didn't work for numbered in the Jews, and a few of the genetic dregs of whites. That's not a legitimate number, or a legitimate plaintiff in the case for pushing to change things.

Jews.

Good answer.

I don't agree, and I don't see evidence from history that this is true either.

Every civilization I've read about that gives women the right to vote has collapsed in degeneracy.

All we have done is spend a century swinging from one extreme, where men's sexuality could be largely unrestrained without consequence and where they had all the rights to the children and could take them and leave the woman in the dirt with nothing,

This is the natural default for humans. Only once the above has resulted in a calm, safe lifestyle have women been given any rights. Men conquer and build countries and civilizations, hand it to the women, and get destroyed.

As is usually the case, I suspect that something in between these two extremes would be better for everyone.

Middle ground can be a pretty big fallacy, and I'm pretty sure you're engaging in it - especially since that middle ground would have to be forced by the courts.

a state in which both men and women have social pressure encouraging them to restrain their sexuality and look after their children, and where the priority is ensuring that kids aren't being aborted or abandoned.

Take a wild guess how that came about. Men rule the societies that turn this way, not women.

If we could find a way to make society into the best parts of 1950s family life, where the norm is dad putting in his 40-hour work week while mom stays home and takes care of their four or five kids and keeps a tidy house, fuck yeah, that would be awesome - sign me up!

Guess what kind of family laws existed then. Go ahead.

i just don't agree that the fix is to dial it back to the other extreme end of the spectrum where men had all the rights and women had none.

It's not an extreme at all. It's how the 1950s worked. Men went to work. Men ruled the house. Men built things. Men owned the family.

I would say that, first of all, the woman's finances should be taken into account.

No, they shouldn't.

Is she able to find a job that enables her to provide for her kid's needs? Is she able to make ends meet? I think it's wrong to make a man fork over hundreds or thousands each month when there is no genuine need on the other end.

No. She needs to make her man happy, or pay the consequences.

And if you want to talk about her picking the wrong man, ask yourself how that's any different than when you admonish men for picking the wrong women.

I would also say that the money should go directly into a special account that can only be used for the child's needs, or be measured out in a format like food stamps so that it can only possibly be spent on school supplies or clothes or lessons or something that the child needs to keep women from spending it on themselves.

"Dear government, tell me how to raise and spend money on my child"

When are you going to get it through your head that this leads to exactly what's going on right now with family courts?

The gist of this is that instead of child support being something punitive it needs to serve the purpose of just ensuring that the child's needs are being met and should only last as long as the need continues, and it should never be more than the kid needs or than the other parent can provide without being driven into poverty.

No. If the parents of the child cannot, or will not provide for it, their genes are faulty, or they're just unlucky. Having the government force you to do ANYTHING with your money is fantastically stupid, and leads to a terrible society. Society > unwanted/genetically inferior children.

If you disagree, then you must like anchor babies, and want spics and sandniggers to invade with their children to replace yours.

I don't think that's why. I think they pushed for women's rights because they wanted more wage slaves to tax. I don't think it was because they knew how women would vote. How would the have known that?

You swallowed that lie that women never had any power before now? Hell, even if we just counted the beta-fuck men who get into power and hand women free shit because pussy, we can easily see what happens to societies when women gain even indirect power.

Furthermore, I think a lot of people in general truly don't understand how leftist voting will eventually destroy a country, men as well as women. Ever talked to a leftist guy before? They don't have a fucking clue.

I could get rich betting that they had single mothers, or that their dads were beta cucks, giving their wives whatever they wanted, and being de-facto absent from the kids' lives.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

That's not a legitimate number, or a legitimate plaintiff in the case for pushing to change things.

History would suggest otherwise, given that there was a push to change things, and enough people behind it to make the push successful.

Take a wild guess how that came about. Men rule the societies that turn this way, not women.

There haven't been many societies in which there was equal pressure on both men and women to restrain their sexuality. What you typically see is one where women are more heavily stigmatized for stepping out of line sexually, while there is far more leeway for men to do so.

It's not an extreme at all.

Men taking everything and leaving women with nothing is as much an extreme as women's rights are today. The only reason you don't see it as an extreme is because such a system would put you at the top of the heap and that seems natural and just to you.

No, they shouldn't.

Sure they should. If she has the kid living with her for the majority of time and she wants child support from her ex, why the heck shouldn't they take her finances into account so they make sure that the man isn't being asked to give more than her child actually needs?

No. She needs to make her man happy, or pay the consequences.

We're talking about a couple who are no longer together. The days of prioritizing "keeping her man happy" are done. He left, or she left, either way he is no longer her man and his happiness is no longer her concern.

And if you want to talk about her picking the wrong man, ask yourself how that's any different than when you admonish men for picking the wrong women.

It absolutely isn't any different. I am forever amazed at the stupidity of a woman who will sleep with a man who's got a few kids with a few different women, or who is obviously bad news. How dumb can one person be?? Why take that risk? A lot of women have shit taste in men and those are the ones who often wind up single moms.

Society > unwanted/genetically inferior children.

This kind of thing is why I said before that you don't seem to care much about kids.

Who the hell do you think society is made of?? Society is people. These kids are part of society and their needs matter just as much as yours and mine; the difference is that we are adults (assuming here that you are not, in fact, the angsty teenager that your initial responses would indicate) and we can look after ourselves, while they are little and dependent on the goodwill and character of those around them.

If you disagree, then you must like anchor babies, and want spics and sandniggers to invade with their children to replace yours.

Much logic. Wow such sense. This is a really ridiculous assumption on your part - why would disagreeing with you mean that of course I must support demographic replacement? NO, I don't support demographic replacement. I am fucking furious with the Trudeau government and the way they have butt raped Canada by bringing in hundreds of thousands of third-world immigrants every year. We can't afford it; we don't need it; and right now they are pushing hard for us to believe the narrative that these people coming in are the only way Canada will survive. It's a travesty. Canadians need to have lots of babies and we need to stand up and say no to the influx of immigrants.

But as a country, as a society, we owe it to our own citizens who were born here and who are actual, real Canadians to make sure that our own citizens' kids are not going hungry or being neglected. They are part of our country too and their lives matter. I don't think we owe it to refugees and illegal immigrants and hordes of people from third-world shitholes to take care of all their kids; that is the responsibility of their own families and their own nations, not us.

You swallowed that lie that women never had any power before now?

When did I say that women had no power? All I said was that women being able to vote has not happened much at all through history, so the idea of someone giving women that right on the basis of "mua ha ha now they will all vote to destroy their country like they always do!" seems far-fetched. I think it had more to do with a long game with the end goal of having more tax payers and breaking apart the nuclear family.

Crensch ago

History would suggest otherwise, given that there was a push to change things, and enough people behind it to make the push successful.

No, there were nepotistic, subversive, powerful Jews, and a few token sheeple. The entire media being owned by Jews makes their voices far louder than their numbers would ever have otherwise.

There haven't been many societies in which there was equal pressure on both men and women to restrain their sexuality. What you typically see is one where women are more heavily stigmatized for stepping out of line sexually, while there is far more leeway for men to do so.

And those were still healthier societies than ones where women have power.

Men taking everything and leaving women with nothing is as much an extreme as women's rights are today. The only reason you don't see it as an extreme is because such a system would put you at the top of the heap and that seems natural and just to you.

Horseshit. Men build civilizations while women sit at home and tend the kids. EASY "work". That's all you cunts had to do, and it wasn't enough - you thought men went to work and had fun without you, so you fought for the right to go do the same.

The more men made your lives easier, the more unhappy you became, which is a big reason why we're in this mess.

Sure they should. If she has the kid living with her for the majority of time and she wants child support from her ex, why the heck shouldn't they take her finances into account so they make sure that the man isn't being asked to give more than her child actually needs?

No. Court. Should. Force. Wealth. Transfer. In This. Case.

None.

And answer these - seriously, or we're going to have a hangup like we did before:

You trust a court to take her finances into account when people lie constantly to courts and IRS? You trust a court to determine what a child needs?

We're talking about a couple who are no longer together. The days of prioritizing "keeping her man happy" are done. He left, or she left, either way he is no longer her man and his happiness is no longer her concern.

And his family is no longer her concern. She fucked up.

It absolutely isn't any different. I am forever amazed at the stupidity of a woman who will sleep with a man who's got a few kids with a few different women, or who is obviously bad news. How dumb can one person be?? Why take that risk? A lot of women have shit taste in men and those are the ones who often wind up single moms.

You're really quite stupid.

Even if the man didn't have other kids, or hadn't fucked anyone else, this can still happen. What then? Who will you blame?

This kind of thing is why I said before that you don't seem to care much about kids.

This kind of thing is why I said before that you're unqualified to comment.

Who cares more about kids:

-The guy that wants a healthy society for healthy human kids to be raised in?

-The woman that cares more about kids lives than having a healthy society for them to be raised in?

Who the hell do you think society is made of?? Society is people.

ADULTS. Society is ADULTS.

These kids are part of society

They grow up to be adults, but their opinions and actions as kids are unimportant, and irrelevant to society. A healthy society raises kids into healthy adults.

Guess what happens with single mothers?

and their needs matter just as much as yours and mine;

That's incorrect. Their needs are secondary to functioning adults. If two adults and two kids were the only people left on the planet, and either the kids or the adults had to die, which would you choose?

A society that puts kids needs at or above the needs of its functioning, adult citizens is a society that will quickly spiral to "save the children". It's emotional bullshit.

the difference is that we are adults (assuming here that you are not, in fact, the angsty teenager that your initial responses would indicate)

Your responses indicate that you're stupid, at whatever age you happen to be.

and we can look after ourselves, while they are little and dependent on the goodwill and character of those around them.

So someone more concerned with the "goodwill and character of those around them" than the children themselves, to your mind, doesn't care much about kids.

Got it.

Much logic. Wow such sense. This is a really ridiculous assumption on your part - why would disagreeing with you mean that of course I must support demographic replacement?

Because your logic is just as stupid. At every level.

Hell, don't make 'em anchor babies, let's make 'em single-mom babies at their 20 and 30% delinquency rates. Your position is absurd and untenable. Placing children as more important than a healthy society, full of well-adjusted adults who keep children's needs below theirs, and below their society's needs, is absurd.

All of this whining and complaining and pissing and moaning that SINGLE MOTHERS aren't the cancer they are.

NO, I don't support demographic replacement.

But you support single mothers ruining ~25% of both male and female children for society. Top notch. Let's not make 'em brown, let's just literally destroy the minds of 1/4 of the whites out there.

When did I say that women had no power? All I said was that women being able to vote has not happened much at all through history,

Because men historically were more redpilled on female nature, and the countries that were conquered because of it didn't get to write history books.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

And those were still healthier societies than ones where women have power.

Not all of them.

Men build civilizations while women sit at home and tend the kids. EASY "work". That's all you cunts had to do

If this is your idea how how human civilization has always worked, then I really don't know what to say to you. You realize that most of human history has not been some 1950s utopia, right? Most people who've ever lived had to scrape out their survival in a state of abject poverty, and died young, men and women alike. This idea that women only had to sit on their asses and play with babies is ludicrous; history does not back this up in any way.

you thought men went to work and had fun without you, so you fought for the right to go do the same.

What is this "you"? I was born in the 80s, long after all this came about.

No. Court. Should. Force. Wealth. Transfer. In This. Case.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

You trust a court to take her finances into account when people lie constantly to courts and IRS? You trust a court to determine what a child needs?

Yes and no. Some courts/judges seem to do a better job of this than others. It seems to me like if you really wanted to make sure someone was telling the truth, it wouldn't be that hard to figure it out with someone investigating their life.

And his family is no longer her concern. She fucked up.

What if he's the one that fucked up? Why is there no room in any of this for men to take responsibility for their mistakes? You place everything on women; I have yet to hear you acknowledge that men might have even a little bit to do with any of what we've been discussing.

You're really quite stupid.

For pointing out that women who sleep with deadbeat dads are more likely to become single moms?

Even if the man didn't have other kids, or hadn't fucked anyone else, this can still happen. What then? Who will you blame?

If a man is a deadbeat that's on him. If he chooses to walk away from his kid and leave his ex on her own, that's on him. If a woman is stupid enough to risk her life like that, that's on her. If she chose to risk having a kid with a man she didn't want to have a kid with, that's on her.

ADULTS. Society is ADULTS.

Society is people. Kids are still part of society - they don't contribute much yet but they are still part of society, which is why society has agreed that taking measures to ensure that our kids can be healthy, fed, sheltered, and educated is important. One day they will be adults and will then be able to have more of an impact on society so we'd damn well better make sure that we aren't sending them out into the world fucked up.

Guess what happens with single mothers?

71% of them raise their kids into healthy adults, if the statistics you shared are accurate.

That's incorrect. Their needs are secondary to functioning adults.

This is why I don't believe you when you say you care about kids. I still remain unconvinced. Look at the animal kingdom - when animals have young to care for, if they are a species that doesn't just spawn a bunch of eggs and then disappear like sea turtles and fish, they place the needs of their young above their own needs in many ways. They will fly hundreds of miles to bring home food for their chick, even if that means going without food themselves (it often does). They will risk their safety to protect their cubs from an alpha male. Finding food and shelter for their young and teaching them how to survive on their own is their top priority until they have successfully raised their young to adulthood. Guess what, humans are animals too, and generally speaking (shitty deadbeat parents aside), when someone has a child, that child's needs become as important, if not more important, than their own needs. The needs of kids may not matter to you personally, but if you look at the way society functions it would appear that the majority of people do things differently, even cross-culturally.

So someone more concerned with the "goodwill and character of those around them" than the children themselves, to your mind, doesn't care much about kids.

Got it.

Well yeah, by definition if you think that kids aren't part of society, that their needs should take a backseat to the needs of their parents, and that their opinions and behaviour don't matter to society, you obviously don't care that much about them.

But you support single mothers ruining ~25% of both male and female children for society

Don't lie in order to try and make your point. I would invite you to go back through my comments and find the place where I said that I think it's good for kids to be delinquents or where I support single parent homes as a good thing.

thelma ago

Bitches be all trying to get my money...

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=piphVwLXst0

They lie lie lie all the time.

In many or most states, even DNA tests will not save a guy from support payments.

Eualos ago

Also my taxes pay for that dumb bitch through the state so I'm paying even if I put my penis no where near her.

Crensch ago

Since I'm sure you'll read this, too.

THIS is why you were FRACTALLY wrong. You were so insanely wrong that it would take this much space just to address the level of STUPID you were displaying.

You still don't get it, do you?

You. Are. Unqualified. To. Comment.

Laurentius_the_pyro ago

THOT STATUS: PATROLLED

Clitorissa ago

There’s nothing wrong with being a slut if you’re on birth control. Just so you both know. Don’t judge me.

@Sarcastatron_9000

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

That mentality is everything that's wrong with modern feminism, but okay. It's your life.

Crensch ago

I think I would rather wait until after you've calmed down to talk to you.

"WAHHH I don't like the WAY you talked to me, so I won't even respond, and I'm a weak WOMAN that needs a MAN to protect me from putting myself in the path of another MAN. Where are all my beta white knights that would tell me how beautiful and awesome I am for advocating that government have a say in what families can and cannot do?"

You like accusing me of fallacies I'm not actually presenting, but you really should look up Tone Fallacy, then literally FUCK yourself for being a wannabe know-it-all when you clearly have put no effort into understanding even your own position.

Crensch ago

I think I would rather wait until after you've calmed down to talk to you.

Tone fallacy.

You're very emotional right now and obviously not up to the challenge of having a rational discussion.

Code for, "I'm too stupid to respond, so I'll pretend you were a meanie and try to get away with walking away."

Perhaps by morning you will better have your feelings and your temper under control.

This is Tuesday for me, slut. This isn't even irritated beyond the pain of witnessing such stupidity from what I assume is a human.

Maybe give this a read.

Maybe YOU should read it, because not a single ounce of what I wrote was Ad Hominem Fallacy. If you were smarter, you'd know that, but you're not. You're a stupid woman that doesn't know invective from Ad Hom.

What I'm getting from your rather ridiculous screed is that you want there to be no laws whatsoever to protect children and ensure that their parents don't just fuck off and abandon them;

And you think the answer is GOVERNMENT.

you are pissed at women because they are able to take everything and leave a man with nothing;

I'm not pissed at anyone. That's a fact.

and you think what is better for everyone is if men can take everything and leave women with nothing.

It is. Objectively so.

Whatever, bitch. It doesn't matter what you want to happen; that isn't how things work in society.

It IS how things work in a healthy society. Ours is sick, and will die if women continue to have the kind of power they have. Don't worry, it'll change drastically in your lifetime, and it'll negatively affect your kids.

Thank God for that because your version sounds even more shitty than the way it is now.

You're too stupid to even understand my position, apparently. My way is the only way to a healthy society. Yours is patently absurd, and just what a WOMAN would advocate for.

At least now kids have at least a bit of protection, and deadbeat sacks of shit don't all just get to run away and abandon their kids.

Sounds like you're the one with an irrational anger. At men. Who likely were removed from their children's lives by the courts you're defending.

You are so unqualified to comment, yet you continue. You're so out of your league, I'm embarrassed for you.

Read my words. Set your stupid, womanly, PMS emotions aside and READ MY WORDS. They are INFINITELY more sensible than anything you've written here, and have far less emotion than much of what you've written.

You belong in a kitchen, and you should never be let out of it.

Sarcastatron_9000 ago

not a single ounce of what I wrote was Ad Hominem Fallacy.

An Ad Hominem is when you insult someone's character or intelligence instead of attacking their point. While you have said things that were about the point I was making, you sprinkle your posts with so many personal attacks and insults that it's ludicrous for you to say "not a single ounce of anything I wrote was an ad hominem" - hey retard, when you tell someone that they're stupid and a cunt and a whore, THAT IS A FUCKING AD HOMINEM. The fact that you also discussed my words doesn't make your other words any less of a fallacy.

And you think the answer is GOVERNMENT.

Look at the way society was before. Let's go back 200 years. Changes to the legal system to protect the interests of kids has made a huge positive change to society, a change that was desperately needed because kids didn't have legal protections and were being exploited and neglected. That is still happening today, but to a lesser degree here than it does in other countries without laws protecting children.

It is. Objectively so.

Prove it. Do you have any stats or evidence to back this up?

My way is the only way to a healthy society.

Prove it. Proving it, by the way, does not involve you calling me a cunt some more and just repeating "because it is" - proving it requires some kind of evidence. It shouldn't be hard to provide some.

Crensch ago

An Ad Hominem is when you insult someone's character or intelligence instead of attacking their point.

Break down exactly where I did this.

While you have said things that were about the point I was making, you sprinkle your posts with so many personal attacks and insults that it's ludicrous for you to say "not a single ounce of anything I wrote was an ad hominem"

So I DID address your points. No matter how much invective I spewed, that doesn't change the fact that your points were addressed as points, and not dismissed just because you're a woman.

I know far more about this than you ever will, apparently.

hey retard, when you tell someone that they're stupid and a cunt and a whore, THAT IS A FUCKING AD HOMINEM.

NO. It's NOT.

Ad hominem:

"You are a woman, so your point is invalid"

NOT AD HOMINEM

"Your point is invalid because X, Y, and Z - also, you're a woman and you shouldn't vote."

You're TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE THOUGH, AND YOU'LL COME BACK SHOWING YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, WON'T YOU?

The fact that you also discussed my words doesn't make your other words any less of a fallacy.

YES IT DOES. Holy SHIT you're stupid.

Look at the way society was before. Let's go back 200 years. Changes to the legal system to protect the interests of kids has made a huge positive change to society, a change that was desperately needed because kids didn't have legal protections and were being exploited and neglected.

Horseshit.

The millennial generation is a perfect example of what happens when you vote to "protect the children". Trannies, fags, communists, sluts, and pedophiles are legitimized because "protect the children" also means "give women free money and let them raise their kids on their own".

"Protect the children" is also the mantra of gun-grabbers. It's a thought-terminating cliche that needs to be removed from any and all lawmaking rhetoric.

That is still happening today, but to a lesser degree here than it does in other countries without laws protecting children.

We have the most fucked up children of any generation, of any civilization, in the history of ever. Tranny kids are featured in our entertainment media. It simply does NOT get more fucked up than that.

Prove it. Do you have any stats or evidence to back this up?

Sure. The man makes the money, and can afford the children. He's responsible enough to go work hard to provide for his family, whereas the woman is not. Forcing him to fork over the money to a useless woman that cannot care for them herself is OBJECTIVELY worse. It's the man's money, it's the man's family.

Prove it. Proving it, by the way, does not involve you calling me a cunt some more and just repeating "because it is" - proving it requires some kind of evidence. It shouldn't be hard to provide some.

Sure.

84% of single parent families are headed by mothers

Single parent families cause crime

While mothers and fathers may have similar ways of parenting, a youth’s interactions with his or her father plays a greater role in the emotional and behavioral development of the child during the early years of growth (Easterbrooks, et al.). Also in that link: "Further evidence indicated that fathers seem to fill stabilizing role in at-risk youth’s lives, protecting them from experiencing the negative influences of other contextual risks in their lives, such as violence and the presence of negative role models among peers and family members (Howard, Lefever, Borkowski, &Whitman, 2006)."

Free children giveaway for women who only accuse the man of domestic violence Page 6 (note the proponents of statutory presumptions) but read on, it's a litany of evidence that the law needs to fuck off out of our lives.

Dads good. Single moms bad. Courts take children from dads. Courts pay moms to take children from dads. Courts will always seek more power. ANY power in the family will result in single moms eventually.

Single moms are cancer. Women need to shut up and get back in the kitchen.

Nalbarcam ago

see: mormons