If a man doesn't support his kids, then yeah, it's HIS problem. What's his excuse? No job? Well, shouldn't have had sex. No skills? Shouldn't have had sex. No education in a demanding field, shouldn't have had sex. Same with a female.
Why? Why is it? Did I say it will ever happen? No. I'm saying it should happen, and it's the fair thing to do.
Don't just say the reasons, list the reasons.
So far I have countered all of her points, the tax payers money is probably the only point that is actually close to having a good point, but if I'm missing any, go ahead and tell me.
But, if you want to feel comfort, not risking the chance of me making a point against these reasons you have, then feel free not to mention the number of reasons I won't listen to, even though I listened to her reasons and countered them.
What you meant was "Number of reasons he won't accept", and your right about that, I won't accept them if there is a way to counter it, because by countering it, it proves it's not right.
The female pays just the same as the male. How's it fair that the male doesn;t have to pay? THAT's NOT fair. Explain to me how that's fair.
Male and female create kid. BOTH should pay for it's needs. That's the most fair thing in the world.
How you can't see that, and see the consequences of that, are, well, plain, STUPID.
YOu think you counter points, but you don't. None of your 'points' are valid.
TALK TO A LAWYER.....he will tell you how idiotic you sound....but as you said, you refuse to talk to a lawyer, or the State, or anyone else involved in these legal matters because you KNOW YOU"RE wrong. Your 'counter points' (and I use that VERY loosely) are crap. Not points at all. You've got a LOT of research and education to undertake.
Your arrogance is astounding. You make NO valid points.
Notice how NO ONE supports you (except for teenyboppers or jilted lovers)....that should tell you something.
YOU create it, YOU take care of it. Whether or not YOU want it has NO bearing. If you don't want it, then DON'T HAVE SEX, idiot.
What if the woman doesn't want the kid? Then what? What if that woman doen't believe in abortion or adoption? What if she is RESPONSIBLE and just cares for it and takes it as a blessing or a gift, or just a part of life that just happened? You keep talking about men, but what about women? Women who don't blieve in 'just getting rid of it'?? THINK a little.
I countered everything. You're just too headstrong to accept it.
How's it not fair? Easil;y countered. The woman "Wanted" the child, so she should pay for the child "she wanted". The male didn't want the child, so why should he be forced to pay for the child he doesn't want?
If women don't want to pay for a child, they can be rid of the responsibility.
The female is paying for the child she wanted, while the male is paying for the child he didn't want. One is being forced, while the other one isn't.
There, I countered. Is that not a counter in your books...Why am I asking that? I plainly is, but it won't be in your mind set. -sigh-
It's not as simple as that. If it was as simple as that, if a rapist raped a woman, then she should keep the child, even if thewoman wants an abortion.
Another point is that a woman might want to have a child, the man doesn't want a child, but she allows herself to fall pregnant anyway.
One is willingly and happily putting themself inthe roleof parenthood, while the other is being forced. So tell me, how is that "fair"?
-Sigh- calling me stupid when I'm countering all your points doesn't say much about you.
Ahem. I said I wouldn't talk toa lawyer or judge about this. But I have already commented to you saying this three times. If you explain the situaion to alawyer or judge, telling them that someone wishes to spend more than two hours of their time with no financial benefit, and they say they will, then I will be more than happy. See, even when I say I will if the person suggesting it sets it up, you still try to pass it off as me saying I'll never do it. Such a moronic thing would only come from you.
I have no good counter points? Oh? Then how come you still haven't countered most ofmy normal points or any of my counter counts? Like I said, saying I have no point and proving I have no point are two different things.
You say my arrogance astounds you? I make no valid points?...-Sigh- Read this carefully. I'm not puting these in capitals as in I'm raging, it's more so you actually read it, and that it stands out.
IF I HAVE NO VALID POINTS, THEN PROVE I HAVE NOVALID POINTS. SIMPLY SAYING IT AND NOT BEINGABLE TO PROVE MY POINTS INVALID SHOWS DIFFERENTLY.
I have made point and counter points to everything you say, you can't counter the majority of them, which if they were wrong you would be able to do, and yet I'm the arrogant one?
Notice how nobody supports me? Really? What about the poll creator? He private messaged me saying that they agree with me completely, and that they agree with all the points made. This person is male, I have barely talked to them, and at some point I believe we has a debate that wasn't exactly on great terms. So no, not just my "Teenyboppers or jilted lovers" that I actually don't even have. So, let me see who tookyour side... Oh, PumpkinKate. Someone that from what I gather, doesn't even like me, and will take everyone else's side but mine.
So, I have someone that I barely talk to on my side, and someone I talk to onoccasions, and you have someone that always goes against what I say, despite if the majority agrees.
What I actually like, was that you were trying to make people that agree with me seem stupid, just so that you don't have to agree to the fact that I'm right, and that people are agreeing with what I say.
Like I keep saying. Sex doesn't mean parenthood anymore, sex is mostly for pleasure. By that logic, if a woman that got raped wants the rapist to take care of the child made by rape, then he should...Great logic, the irony of you calling me an idiot in that sentence.
Think a little? Ok. Let me come up with yet another easily counter point. Oh, I got it.
That's "her" beliefs. So a man should suffer because of "her" beliefs? What if the man is against abortion, that it's against his religion, and his partner does it anyway? What then? I guess that's ok, right?
Your whole logic is that if a woman choses not to want an abortion or put it up for adoption, then it's partly the man's fault for her keeping the child. No, if it's her belief, it's her responsibity if the male didn't want the child or share those beliefs.
Thought a little, made a counter point, now telling you to do the same. Think a little.
Just like all the other comments from you, I countered this one on every point you made, yet you are going to try convince yourself I haven't, even when you can't make a counter point.
"How's it not fair? Easily countered. The woman "Wanted" the child, so she should pay for the child "she wanted"."-ItDuz
Pardon, but the MAN and the WOMAN had sex. Pregnancy happens when people have sex.
Maybe the woman didn't want the child?? Huh?? BUT....what if she doesn't believe in abortion (which is a LOT of women!!). Then what?
Just don't have sex, avoid the whole problem. Or know your partner well enough to have confidence that you both can come to a reasonable decision. Hello?
YOu didn't counter ANY point, btw. You just repeat yourself and refuse to listen to anyone that doesn't agree with you.
Go talk to a lawyer, seriously. SERIOUSLY. He'll tell you how wrong you are.....but you don't want that, do you? You're afraid. It's OK, try to get over your fear and just do it.
Yes, the man empregnated her, but she still had the means of getting rid of the responsibility. So if a man has sex, he can't get out of parenthood, but if a woman does, she is allowed several escapes from parenthood? Great equality there.
If she doesn't believe in abortion? Easy. Adoption. "What if she doesn't believe in adoption?" Then it's "her" responsibility to deal with the consequences of "her" beliefs. If her beliefs are what's making her keep the chilld, then it's responsibility to run by "her" beliefs. The man isn't to get his rights controlled by a woman because of her "beliefs". What's actually sickening is that that thought process is the same as terrorists. "The people that don't believe or go by these beliefs deserve to be punished due to them being wrong".
Just don't have sex. How many times does this have to be repeated. Sex is performed for pleasure more than reproduction. It is our natural instinct is to have sex. Wow, what? You're saying the reasonable decision part? You mean like having unprotected sex with people you know aren't good father material, yet decide to the keep the baby anyway?
I didn't counter any points? I've done nothing but counter each of your points. I just repeat myself? Yeah, I have been repeating myself half of the time, and why do you think that is? Because you are repeating yourself, avoiding the counter points I already made for the point you present.
-Sigh- Shut up, will you? I've said constantly that if you get in contact with a lawyer willing to communicate with me on the matter I'll do it, and you ignore that even though I'm saying it in every reply. Face it, you're scared. Patheticly scared. You know you won't phone up to arrange it because it's a stupid suggestion, regardless, I said I would still do it if you set it up.
Awww poor little Wigsplitz can't read? Can't handle the fact that she's being asked to get a lawyer to contact me, then still acts like I haven't asked her to set it up. Don't worry, you're patheticness shows on those merits alone.
TALK TO A LAWYER before you post anymore of this dribble. Seriously. Go. You'll get schooled. And, note that MOST lawyers are MALE. You need to expand your views. YOu are NOT right, you make NO valid points, you sound like a joke. No country would allow tis to hapen.
YOUR taxes will go up to pay for ids that are unsupported. PERIOD. did I say PERIOD? so, you want males to dump their kids, yet you completely FAIL to understand that YOU (via increased taxes) will be paying for kids that aren't even yours.
The responsible party (mom,dad) should be paying. Not you, not me, not every other Tom, Dick and Harry. Idiot.
Talk to a lawyer? Like I said, you set it up due to it being your idea, and I'll accept to talk to them if they accept to it. I've said this on every reply to you, and you choose to ignore it. So either be willing to make your suggestion happen, or don't suggest it.
-Sigh-
If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong. I have countered all of your points, you're just too arrogant to accept it.
I sound like a joke, even though I've gone through every part ofeach of your comments, and made counter points for each one. When you knopw you can't counter my points, you resort to petty insults, and the claim "You're wrong because I said so".
-Facepalm-
Like I said, take the money away from the women that made the wrong choices so that the money can be given for males to make a choice at all. You avoid these points I make and made, just so you can think you have a point, even when my past points have already proved your current pointswrong, and I have to repeat myself.
And my taxes will go down if the money wasn't needed for child benefits. So, what's your point? If your point is taxes, then taken away child benefits will lessen them. But I know what your point is, it's not for the child, the taxpayers or the women, you are arguing so that males don't get as much choice as women, and it's that simple.
Keep the points coming, I will counter them each time.
You haven't countered anything, you just keep repeating yourself over and over.
Why the hell should I set you up with a lawyer? YOU made the claim, YOU do the research. You've done NO research, NONE. Since YOU brought up the topic, YOU are obligated to find the evidence, duh.
First of all...shut up....talk to REAL people like lawyers, lawmakers, taxpayers, etc...and THEN come back. Serously. Or are you too afraid?
You just come on here, where most people don't pay taxes, don't make laws, have NO clue how the system works, are probably under 18 (or VERY young) and have NO clue.
Talk to some REAL people who actually work in such fields.
But you're too scared. I know, it's scary. But try it. Then come back with your findings. I doubt you will, too afraid of being proven completely wrong and looking like even more of a complete fool than you already are.
AM I too afraid? Didn't you read the last part? You want me to talk to such people, and this debate with you has gone on for more than two hours. Do you really think any of those people are going to sit and take part of a two hour debate that gives them no financial profit? If you believe that they would, you should gather some new thoughts.
Like I said, I have no problem talking to them, and since you want it to happen, you can set it up. Contact a lawyer or judge etc, inform them of how long this debate has taken, then ask them to take part of it with no pay. If they agree to doing so, then I'll do it. By your same logic, if you say you're not going to, it's because you're "afraid to actually contact them".
Oh, so most people on here have no idea, do they? You do? Oh, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, oh great Wigsplitz, but I don't think you understand, you can put your self on a high horse, but don't expect anyone else to see you sitting on it. Infact, expect me to pull you off it, kind of like I am now.
I'm nineteen. I have "no clue" yet I am countering all your points. Must be irritating, trying to make someones input seem stupid when they're completely dominating the debate.
Like I said. You want me to do it, so I will if you set it up. I like how you avoid that bit, the bit where I ask you to make it happen due to you wanting it to happen. See, it's not the actual debate that makes me think I'll makle a fool of myself, it's expectiing such busy people to take part in a two hour plus debate that started online...
Need what I said repeated? Like you do most of the time? Ok.
Set it up for me since you want it to happen, and I'll talk to a lawyer or judge.
Set it up for me since you want it to happen, and I'll talk to a lawyer or judge.
Set it up for me since you want it to happen, and I'll talk to a lawyer or judge.
Set it up for me since you want it to happen, and I'll talk to a lawyer or judge.
Set it up for me since you want it to happen, and I'll talk to a lawyer or judge.
Set it up for me since you want it to happen, and I'll talk to a lawyer or judge.
Something tells me you'll choose to ignore what I said here.
Anyway, on to countering your other points, if you can call them points. -Sigh-
YOu set it up, it's YOUR fight. I already know the outcome. You're the one who needs to see it for yourself.
You always do this....you make claims, pandering to mostly teenagers who don't know anything about the law or family court, or anything like that. YOU set it up.....it's YOUR issue. You want to fight for it, you have the burden of proof.
If you can find a group of lawyers, judges and other informed individuals in this matter, then I will concede and deem you the king of the issue.
I'm not ignoring anything you say. I read it all, I get your 'point', OK? All I'm asking you for is some VALID, legal opinions on the matter. Otherwise it's just a bunch of shit. So, PROVE it's a good idea that should be considered. I'll be waiting.
Oh, really? Ok. Same sense. If the woman expected a man to financially support them, but isn't able to, shouldn't of had sex with the man.
No money to keep child or self alive due to the father not financially supporting, shouldn't of had sex.
Want child benefits off of tax payers, shouldn't of had sex.
It's not the same for women, because they get child benefits spent on the child and themselves, where as a man is expected to pay, and the female receives.
By that sense, you are against abortion or adoption.
But since what you said is obviously stupid due to the fact that sex is mainly used for pleasure, not reproduction, all I can do is laugh at your "duh", since it is added on, as if your point was at all correct.
Child support is for kids, but most of the time the female spends the money on herself aswell. Like "you" said, "People shouldn't have to pay for othe peoples kids". And now you're syaing child support is for kids, as if it's not a bad thing for everyone but the mother and child.
Sorry, Wigsplitz, you're not a man, you have no idea on what a real man is, so don't try to pretend you do.
"Any real man would want to take care of the kid they never wanted". No, that's saying that a "real man" ahas tobend to the needs of the mother simply because the law allows it, even though he never wanted the child. That's what a "real man" is to you? Just demonstrates that you have no idea what a real man is.
I would supprt the child "If I intentionally impregnated the woman". By that logic, you deem all females that either adoptor abort their child as weak, and not real women. You're supposed to be on the female side, not unintentionally implying insults about them.
What I love is that now, since you know you can't prove any ofmy points wrong, you're filling your comments with insults more than actual points to say you're right. What's wrong? No good points to fall back on, so you have to fall back on insults?
Keep this coming, Wigsplitz, I can do this forever, and the outcome will be the same; me winning the debate.
Last night I wasextremely tired, and yet I was completely dominating the debate. Do you really think you'll get far with me when I'm fully awake? I litrally just woke up this second, eagr to see your reply, and in my wakened dazed state, I still accuratly prove you wrong.
Again, you THINK you're winning. The laws and common sense say otherwise. When this becomes law, then I'll concede that you won. So, that will be, um, never?
Why is it always win/lose? It IS possible to discuss things in a rational manner, you know. You have to look at all points of view. In order to defeat your enemy, you have to understand them, no? So how can you do that if all you do is rub people the wrong way and refuse to listen to the concerns of others?
Let's just say you got into a position to present your idea s an actual bill people could vote on. How do you expect to get the bill passed by the way you're acting and the way you talk to people? It's absurd. Calm down.
Wrong. It amazes me that you call and imply that I'm the moron here.
Sex isn't mainly used for reproduction in today's world, it's for pleasure. Most people that have sex aren't doing it to have a child. So no, it isn't as simple as you put it at the start of sex should mean parenthood.
If both want a child, then both are equally responsible. If one doesn't, yet it happens anyway, then they aren't equally responsible. If a woman choses a partner that everybody knows will not make good father material, and with most probability, wasn't even planning on sticking around for the relationship, then it's mainly her fault for picking such a man to have a child with. Is it an employees fault if he was hired by a boss, when the employee has no skill in the workforce, yet the boss hires him anyway, and the employee does a bad job? Whos fault is it for the work not being done properly? The man that lacked the qualities to do the job, or the boss's fault for hiring someone that lacked the qualities and knew they lacked the qualities? Same argument.
You can't fall pregnant to a man that can barely financially support himself, then expect him to stick around when he is expected to support a family, when he can't support himself financially. If the woman knew the qualities and limitations the man had, then she is responsible if the father doesn't stick around. None of them would survive if they were expecting to live off of a man that can't financially even support himself.
Your whole logic is like blaming the cake for a person being fat. It's just plain stupid.
Regardless, I've already explained why that part is just wrong, and yet I have to repeat it simply because you can't accept it.
Blackmail a woman in to having an abortion? What are you talking about? Where have I said that anyone has the right to blackmail someone in to abortion. Perhaps focus on what's being said rather than what you think is being said. Pretty sure you already tried to make it seem like I think blackmailing a woman to have an abortion is justified, when I think the opposite.
Ah, how's that fair? So when a male is required to pay money for the child and he doesn't want to, he should of "Kept it in his pants". But when a woman gets some form of free food, and child benefits, it's poor her? Yeah, because having to pay for a child they never wanted by having to work to pay for that child they never wanted is totally the same as getting free forms of food. -Sigh-
Well, if she doesn't like it that way, then she should of "kept it in her pants". Oh how I can tell you will be hating that being said, "That women should keep it in their pants" if they don't want to have to go through the responsibility of parenthood. Annoying right? Just like how many times you and others have said the male should keep it in his pants, then you expect me to pity females for getting free forms of food for their kids, while males have to work and pay for giving food to the child they never wanted, which cripples him for wanting to make a family with someone he can financially support due to paying for the kid he never wanted. Good insight on equality there.
If they have kids to men that don't support them, then that's their faults. Why would anyone in their right mind get pregnant to such people? So it's automaticly the man's fault for the woman "deciding" to "keep" a baby that the man that she knows won't help bring up? Who in the right mind would keep a child under those living ways? So it's the man's fault for the woman deciding to keep the child that wouldn't be properly supported...I just love your sense of equality, the whole "It's always the male's fault" part of equality...
Oh? So now it's unfair for the taxes to rise for unwanted kids? A minute ago you were saying it's unfair for people to pay for kids that aren't theirs at all, up until I proved to you that people already do it for single mothers. So now you change your tune? It's gone from not fair for paying at all, to not fair to pay more? So let me get this straight. You find it unfair that people should pay money for a man's choice through finiancial abortion, yet don't have a problem with people paying for women to have money because they didn't take the time to find a man that wants to be a father? Yeah good one.
So it's ok for women to get tax payers money spent on them, but not males? What a joke. You're jumping around looking for any point to make, even if it doesn't have any point at all.
How about nobody gets their taxes spent on parents? How about that?
ItDuz I love your rational, well thought and not emotional comments and how you fight against people like wigsplitz e.g. who don't get it or are just too ignorant to even try thinking rational... they aren't worth those arguments!
I know that by myself because wigsplitz argumented against me before.
Thanks. Yes, I would have to agree. I have actually lost track of how many times she argued with me. The last time she argued with me, she made the same point. For some odd reason I was too tired to debate with anyone for the amount of time I usually do, that period of time went on for about two to three months. But, luckily I've gotten back in to the old debating ways I used to be in, so I thought about her points and made counter points.
Unfortunatly, some people are just like that. It's people like them that stopped me debate about equality on behalf of the female gender alone, and started thinking about both sides of equality, the way it should be focused.
Thanks for your reply.
Would you believe that it's 3:20 and I'm up debating? Very tired. I might go to bed and pick this debate up tomorow. I mean, given that I'm doing it while I'm extremely tired, I think I'd have much more energy and focus to debate twice the amount I have with him/her at this time of night.
You: having to pay for kids that aren't yours is wrong! Never thought about that part on taxes, did you?
Me: People are basically taxed to raise kids that aren't their own, for single mothers. And you are complaining that money is being spent to bring up kids, saying it's unfair that tax payers have to pay for kids that aren't theirs at all?
You. Yeah, but they'd have to pay more! Women getting money from tax payers to raise a kid is ok, doing it for men is not!
Me: So you have gone to "Paying money for kids that aren't yours is wrong" to "Paying more money for kids that aren't yours is wrong"?
I have an idea. How about we take away the child benefits, and make all the tax money that goes to that go to financial abortion? Women are more than capable at getting jobs to support themselves and their child, due to them leaving colleges and universities with the most grades etc.
Really? Funny, how I don't know what fair is, yet you can't properly explain why it's not fair, only say it's not fair. Paying money for kids that aren't yours isn't fair switched to paying "more" money for kids that aren't yours is unfair simply due to me pointing out the fact that people pay single mothers for kids that aren't the tax payers', even though half of it goes on the mother, not the child.
But hey, feel free to explain "why" I don't know what fair is. Give me examples, and like everything else, I'll counter it. And before you say "You haven't countered anything" Prove that I haven't, because my comments alone prove that I have, and the fact that you're flip flopping your idea, avoiding important parts I include, shows that I have accuratly countered your points.
I have no arguement, yet all you can do is say I have no argument, and still not give me answeres to most of what my replies claim. "You have no argument! Oh, the majority of the points you made don't have any counters by me?...Well, em, I just don't want to counter them...Yeah, that's why". To quote the oh so great you: "What a joke".
If you want, I will make you a list of things from my replies to you that you have completely avoided, the ones you avoid answering, yet still insist I have no argument dispite you not able to answer the majority of the points made.
Want that list? I'll be more than happy to make one. But let me guess "You don't have the time" or "The points are irrelevant" etc, etc, yada, yada. I'm certain you'll make some excuse to not have to answer the majority of my points you choose to ignore.
Yeah, and how would others like to not have to pay for the single mothers that had children to a men that was obviously going to bail? I'm sure they'd like that, too. I know I would like that.
The only way for it to be fair is for males to get financial abortions, like females get abortion, or females don't get the tax payers money given to them to pay for children that aren't theirs, just like males won't get tax payers money spent on them for financial abortion. Now if you say that it isn't fair, I'm going to just facepalm so much, since you claime to know more about fairness than me. But, if you were to say it isn't fair, I expect an explantion on why it isn't. I'll have a counter in less than a minute for it.
"Look at the big picture. It's NOT fair for people to have to pay for kids that aren't theirs."
-Facepalm-
I repeated it three times, and put a part in capitals just so you can get it through what ever you call a brain, and understand a counter for that part. "Child benefits" Need it repeated? Either way, you'll still avoid it. Yes, it is unfair, but it still happens for women, what was it again? Oh yes, child benefits. Need it repeated? I would guess so. Chiiiiiiild benefiiiiiiiiiits...Still not got it? Fine, I'll repeat again. Child benefits. Child benefits. Child benefits. Child benefits...Do you get it now? Yes, it's unfair, but single mothers still get the tax payers money spent on them. You sit their claiming it's unfair that tax payers have to pay for someone elses child, yet I keep giving you a fact that they do it for single mothers. What you actually mean, is that it's unfair for the tax payers to pay for someone elses child for the benefit of males. That's what you really mean, even though you'd never admit it.
"Ahahahahahaha call a lawyer, call a judge. Ahahahahahahaha". Oh what a joke you are. Really. I just gave you counter point after counter point. Simply because something won't happen, doesn't mean something should happen.
I know I'm wrong, yet I've given counter point after counter point against you, and you're flopping around trying to figure out to counter me, in which I just counter you right back.
Face it, you're losing this one. Saying I'm wrong and proving I'm wrong are two different things, and you're only doing one of those...Guess which one that is.
-Sigh- You remind me of a child in the schoolyard. "You're wrong, you're wrong" then asked why, they just say "Because you're wrong" unable to make any "real" reason that can't be countered points.
I'm still waiting if you want to make any "new" points, despite me being able to counter them, simply because I've already countered them, yet you keep saying the same thing that has already been countered.
Sarcasm only works when you have the winning edge, you don't. Your little ending paragraph was more of a "I can't prove you wrong, so I'll tell you to do something NOBODY would ever be willing to do in order to settle a debate online.
The fact that you think any lawyer or judge would take time out of their careers to actually have a conversation with me on this topic without getting paid is just the typie of moronic thing I have come to expect out of you.
Better idea. phone up a lawyer/judge, and ask them "Would you be willing to listen to someones opinion on equality for no pay? The discussion has gone on for about two hours, but I'm sure you'd be willing to spend that time out of your career and private life, right?
You go ahead and do that, and then see who's the laughing stock.
The person that stated that all (or most) of the ground was linked together was laughed at for saying such a thing, but several years later due to fossil findings, it was proven to be true. If I was given the time, I could do the same with a lawyer/judge. But, even though my mother's job at a certain time in her life involved helping females with problems involved in this post, I could prove her wrong and make her see my point and agree.
I'd be more than happy to be in a conversation with a lawyer/judge through email. Go ahead and set it up for me, after all, you're the one wanting me to do it.
Can't wait to see your response there. Dare I say it, for the third time on this site ever. Yes I shall. "LOL".
I'm not losing anything, you're the one who's being rude.
Let's go point by point.
OK...
ABSOLUTE MAIN POINT: (!!!!!!)
States WILL NOT pay assistance without a good faith attempt to find and charge the bio father. Why should the state (and taxpayers) pay for a kid that isn't theirs? It's the LAW. Before ANY assistance is given, one must go through family court to get the rightful person to pay (whether it's a mother OR father)...as it should be.
1. First point: You want to coerce women into having abortions, That's indisputable, you've made that clear time and again. WRONG!!
What if a woman doesn't believe in abortions? So she's screwed because she holds her beliefs above your demands?
2. The amount of taxpayer money that will go to unsupported kids will skyrocket. Guess what? That means YOU and YOUR tax money too!! So, if you have NO kids, guess what, you'll be paying for other people's kids via taxes. You really want that?
3. Other innocent taxpayers don't want to pay for unsupported kids, and why should they? As I described to you before, 98% of shoppers don't steal, but EVERYONE pays for the thieves theft by higher prices. Is THAT fair?? NO!!
It doesn't even matter because it will never happen and it's a fucking stupid idea. The only people who will agree with you are morons who are deadbeats themselves. That's why I said to talk to a lawyer. Can't talk to a lawyer, then go sit in on court. Learn something. How idiotic.
Oh the irony. How you say for me to go through what you say "poinbt by point" yet you have completely avoided ansering the things you said you would gladly counter that I went through "point by point". -Facepalm-
I'm going to completely dominate you at your own points, because you obviously like to avoid all the main points I made specificly for you to answer that had everything to do with this topic.
You're right, why should anybody pay for a child that isn't theres. Like I keep saying "Child support". People "are" paying for children that aren't theirs because women are deciding to have kids to men that aren't willing or can financially support a themselves, let alone a family, but expect such men to turn in to high powered business men if they fall pregnant. If you even say "you keep repeating that part" to me, I will just go in to a fit of laughter. Because you keep avoiding that I point out how you say tax payers paying for other children is wrong, when most of the child support goes to women and kids that aren't the tax payers. You fail to mention that's wrong. What was it I said? Take the money from the person that gets child benefits, the ones that get money due to having to pay for a single mother's child due to her choosing to keep the child who's father can't or won't financially support the child, expecting to get tax payers money for their choice to keep the child, and give it to financial abortion so they can atleast get the choice females have.
First point? Easily countered.
Wrong, I am not coercing women in to having abortions. The woman gets to choose on her own free will if she'll keep the child or not. I'm saying the male will have the same choice as the female on the "parent's" role. If she wants to keep the child, that's completely up to her, but she should expect to be able to financially support it. This would also maybe make women wanting kids look for actual father material men that want kids that will actually support them and be there for the child, rather than getting pregnant to a man that she knows won't be able to financially support her, then expecting the tax payers to pay her child benefits.
Second point. Easily countered aswell, but I'll do two points, since you still avoid acknowledging that people are already paying for kids that aren't theirs thanks to single mothers that couldn't wait to find a proper father material man to have a child with:
Child support. People are still paying for those kids that aren't theirs, just on the behalf of women. Wrong. If anything, in the long run every form of paying for children that aren't yours will lower the taxes. If women don't get supported by the tax payers money, then they're going to have to get used to the idea that they can't have children with just anyone, they'd have to look for men that want to be a father, can be a father, and financially support the family. When females get it through to them that they need to find a father material man to have a child with, or face not being able to survive without financially supporting the child by themselves, they will look for men that will stick around, and financially support their child, meaning the tax payers won't be paying for the single mother's child due to her having to have a child that will be raised in the proper family setting, and with a parent working to financially support the family.
Third point.
You're right, why should they? "They are". God, fucking read, will you? People already are paying for children that aren't theirs. Do you need it slapped across your face to understand that that's where child benefits come from? Do you need a slide show to help you? God. It's like you need a five hour documentary to understand that one single point.
So yes, "why should they". How about the money that goes to child benefits from the tax payers get their money to go toward financial abortion? So that "their" money goes to "them" and not to a child that isn't theirs.
Yes, people ARE paying for kids that aren't theirs. But...HELLO!! If it was legal for a man to abandon his kid financially for life, then how many MORE kids will other people have to support? MILLIONS. Who can afford that? Why would a state go for that/ They wouldn't, they DON'T currently. There's NO way a state would allow people male or female to NOT support thier kids, how is that logical? The state doesn't want to pay, the taxpayers don't want to pay. The PARENTS should be paying. Period. So, counter that, smartiepants.
OK, you win....whatever....when you take this to the legislature, and they are just beaming over your brilliant idea, then give me a holler. I'll be waiting.
I'm not even going to bother with you anymore, you ask a question, people try to show you flaws in your plan and you refuse to even listen. How do you expect to learn ANYTHING if you NEVER listen.
Plus, you're just a kid, you have NO clue how the world works. Give it time.
The fact that you REFUSE to talk to a lawyer proves all points....you know damn well they'd have a good, hearty laugh at your expense because your idea is plain absurd. Scaredy cat. If you have so much confidence in your plan, and think you're SOOOOOO right, then why not talk to lawmakers?
I don't counter all your points because for one thing, they're not points, they're half-baked notions. No need to point out how retarded they are.
Funny how you kiss ass to the 3 idiots who agree with you, yet anyone who goes against you, you tear into instead of listening to their concerns. Don't you know, people who want to innovate or change things NEED opinions of all sorts in order to fine tune their agenda. You lack that skill, therefore you will never get anywhere. Do you think many successful and powerful people got that way by being a close-minded prick? No, they didn't.
So, with that, I'll see ya around, but as for this discussion, I'm out. Learn to read and be more tolerant instead of flying into a rage every time someone disagrees with you. It's black and white with you, if someone agrees, you LOVE them. Disagree, and they've become your worst enemy. That's not how to get tings done. Talk to professionals, find out how successful people 'made it'. That should help you. Of course, maybe not because they'd probably criticize your attitude and mannerisms. You'll never get anywhere in life acting like this.
Ah yes, you mean like my mother? Someone that has worked with people that would be involved in situations this debate is about? She fully agrees that financial abortion should be allowed. How about people such as the Youtuber "TheAmazingAtheist"? How about the Youtuber "Girlwrites what", a mother of three children, just like my mother?
Only people that will agree with me are morons? I've just proven every popint you have wrong, then when I show you more points that you can't counter, specificly to show you that you can't counter them, you avoid answering them at all. You can't call someone a moron if you can't even counter their points.
Like I said, you set it up, and I'll talk to them. Yes, sit in court, then what? All I can do is sit and listen. If I was to say something that is an accurate counter point, I would be flung out, not because of the point being presented, but because of me speaking in a case that has nothing to do with me. So repeat the bit that comes after that bit, you know, the bit about learning something.
How idiotic, how idiotic, how idiotic, you moron, you moron, idiot, idiot, etc, etc, yada, yada.
Those fricken statements only work and can be taken seriously if you are winning the debate. As I explained, I have already won this debate due to you refusing to answer the main point I presented, presented just to prove you couldn't answer them, in which case you couldn'teven attempt to.
Calling someone who's winning a debate while you lose a debate am idiot, or say their claim is idiotic, even when you're losing the whole debate of whether or not it's idiotic, is just plain stupid. You're an idiot. And see how I am able to do that and it actually can be considered an accurate statement? That's because I won this debate.
The sad thing is, you know you lost this debate, and I know you know it. You just can't admit defeat, even when you have been beaten to the ground in this debate. It's just plain sad. The more you try to make a point, the easier it gets for me, because with each point of yours I counter, you flip flop to an even easier point to counter, or just repeat a point I have already countered.
I introduced this to the nice users of the chat room. Even they are sitting there like "What the fuck?" at your selfproclaimed counter points.
Keep them coming, Wigsplitz. I can counter any point you throw at me, where as all you can do is hide from mine.
But I guess I should apologize, I gave you the false impression that you could win a debate with me due to not making as much effort in my earlier debates with you. You obviously noticed the difference between our debates from now and from last time we debated. Want to know the reason why the sudden change? On how the taxpayers argument was different in our last debate than it is now? Simple, the taxpayers arguement wasn't that changed, I did. When we last had our discussion, I wasn't motivated to put much effort in to proving myself right, but now I am back to the way I used to be, motivated to prove my point right, and even more motivated to smash arrogant, pathetic, sarcastic peoples's egos such as yourself, down to the ground in debates.
There is one thing you can learn from this, Wigsplitz, and that is to not engage in a debate with me again in hopes of proving what little point you think you have, unless you want want a long debate that will result in me winning half way through it, then for the rest of the debate, you trying to hold the broken pieced of your fragile ego to the point of making yourself look like an idiot.
Abortion: Against or For?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
If a man doesn't support his kids, then yeah, it's HIS problem. What's his excuse? No job? Well, shouldn't have had sex. No skills? Shouldn't have had sex. No education in a demanding field, shouldn't have had sex. Same with a female.
--
PumpkinKate
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
The idea is so unbelievably preposterous, just let existence itself prove him wrong, rather than try and convince him.
It will never happen for a huge number of reasons that he won't listen to.
--
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Why? Why is it? Did I say it will ever happen? No. I'm saying it should happen, and it's the fair thing to do.
Don't just say the reasons, list the reasons.
So far I have countered all of her points, the tax payers money is probably the only point that is actually close to having a good point, but if I'm missing any, go ahead and tell me.
But, if you want to feel comfort, not risking the chance of me making a point against these reasons you have, then feel free not to mention the number of reasons I won't listen to, even though I listened to her reasons and countered them.
What you meant was "Number of reasons he won't accept", and your right about that, I won't accept them if there is a way to counter it, because by countering it, it proves it's not right.
--
wigsplitz
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
You didn't counter ANYTHING!!
The female pays just the same as the male. How's it fair that the male doesn;t have to pay? THAT's NOT fair. Explain to me how that's fair.
Male and female create kid. BOTH should pay for it's needs. That's the most fair thing in the world.
How you can't see that, and see the consequences of that, are, well, plain, STUPID.
YOu think you counter points, but you don't. None of your 'points' are valid.
TALK TO A LAWYER.....he will tell you how idiotic you sound....but as you said, you refuse to talk to a lawyer, or the State, or anyone else involved in these legal matters because you KNOW YOU"RE wrong. Your 'counter points' (and I use that VERY loosely) are crap. Not points at all. You've got a LOT of research and education to undertake.
Your arrogance is astounding. You make NO valid points.
Notice how NO ONE supports you (except for teenyboppers or jilted lovers)....that should tell you something.
YOU create it, YOU take care of it. Whether or not YOU want it has NO bearing. If you don't want it, then DON'T HAVE SEX, idiot.
What if the woman doesn't want the kid? Then what? What if that woman doen't believe in abortion or adoption? What if she is RESPONSIBLE and just cares for it and takes it as a blessing or a gift, or just a part of life that just happened? You keep talking about men, but what about women? Women who don't blieve in 'just getting rid of it'?? THINK a little.
--
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
-
wigsplitz
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
I countered everything. You're just too headstrong to accept it.
How's it not fair? Easil;y countered. The woman "Wanted" the child, so she should pay for the child "she wanted". The male didn't want the child, so why should he be forced to pay for the child he doesn't want?
If women don't want to pay for a child, they can be rid of the responsibility.
The female is paying for the child she wanted, while the male is paying for the child he didn't want. One is being forced, while the other one isn't.
There, I countered. Is that not a counter in your books...Why am I asking that? I plainly is, but it won't be in your mind set. -sigh-
It's not as simple as that. If it was as simple as that, if a rapist raped a woman, then she should keep the child, even if thewoman wants an abortion.
Another point is that a woman might want to have a child, the man doesn't want a child, but she allows herself to fall pregnant anyway.
One is willingly and happily putting themself inthe roleof parenthood, while the other is being forced. So tell me, how is that "fair"?
-Sigh- calling me stupid when I'm countering all your points doesn't say much about you.
Ahem. I said I wouldn't talk toa lawyer or judge about this. But I have already commented to you saying this three times. If you explain the situaion to alawyer or judge, telling them that someone wishes to spend more than two hours of their time with no financial benefit, and they say they will, then I will be more than happy. See, even when I say I will if the person suggesting it sets it up, you still try to pass it off as me saying I'll never do it. Such a moronic thing would only come from you.
I have no good counter points? Oh? Then how come you still haven't countered most ofmy normal points or any of my counter counts? Like I said, saying I have no point and proving I have no point are two different things.
You say my arrogance astounds you? I make no valid points?...-Sigh- Read this carefully. I'm not puting these in capitals as in I'm raging, it's more so you actually read it, and that it stands out.
IF I HAVE NO VALID POINTS, THEN PROVE I HAVE NOVALID POINTS. SIMPLY SAYING IT AND NOT BEINGABLE TO PROVE MY POINTS INVALID SHOWS DIFFERENTLY.
I have made point and counter points to everything you say, you can't counter the majority of them, which if they were wrong you would be able to do, and yet I'm the arrogant one?
Notice how nobody supports me? Really? What about the poll creator? He private messaged me saying that they agree with me completely, and that they agree with all the points made. This person is male, I have barely talked to them, and at some point I believe we has a debate that wasn't exactly on great terms. So no, not just my "Teenyboppers or jilted lovers" that I actually don't even have. So, let me see who tookyour side... Oh, PumpkinKate. Someone that from what I gather, doesn't even like me, and will take everyone else's side but mine.
So, I have someone that I barely talk to on my side, and someone I talk to onoccasions, and you have someone that always goes against what I say, despite if the majority agrees.
What I actually like, was that you were trying to make people that agree with me seem stupid, just so that you don't have to agree to the fact that I'm right, and that people are agreeing with what I say.
Like I keep saying. Sex doesn't mean parenthood anymore, sex is mostly for pleasure. By that logic, if a woman that got raped wants the rapist to take care of the child made by rape, then he should...Great logic, the irony of you calling me an idiot in that sentence.
Think a little? Ok. Let me come up with yet another easily counter point. Oh, I got it.
That's "her" beliefs. So a man should suffer because of "her" beliefs? What if the man is against abortion, that it's against his religion, and his partner does it anyway? What then? I guess that's ok, right?
Your whole logic is that if a woman choses not to want an abortion or put it up for adoption, then it's partly the man's fault for her keeping the child. No, if it's her belief, it's her responsibity if the male didn't want the child or share those beliefs.
Thought a little, made a counter point, now telling you to do the same. Think a little.
Just like all the other comments from you, I countered this one on every point you made, yet you are going to try convince yourself I haven't, even when you can't make a counter point.
Sad, it really is.
--
wigsplitz
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
"How's it not fair? Easily countered. The woman "Wanted" the child, so she should pay for the child "she wanted"."-ItDuz
Pardon, but the MAN and the WOMAN had sex. Pregnancy happens when people have sex.
Maybe the woman didn't want the child?? Huh?? BUT....what if she doesn't believe in abortion (which is a LOT of women!!). Then what?
Just don't have sex, avoid the whole problem. Or know your partner well enough to have confidence that you both can come to a reasonable decision. Hello?
YOu didn't counter ANY point, btw. You just repeat yourself and refuse to listen to anyone that doesn't agree with you.
Go talk to a lawyer, seriously. SERIOUSLY. He'll tell you how wrong you are.....but you don't want that, do you? You're afraid. It's OK, try to get over your fear and just do it.
--
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
See More Comments =>
Yes, the man empregnated her, but she still had the means of getting rid of the responsibility. So if a man has sex, he can't get out of parenthood, but if a woman does, she is allowed several escapes from parenthood? Great equality there.
If she doesn't believe in abortion? Easy. Adoption. "What if she doesn't believe in adoption?" Then it's "her" responsibility to deal with the consequences of "her" beliefs. If her beliefs are what's making her keep the chilld, then it's responsibility to run by "her" beliefs. The man isn't to get his rights controlled by a woman because of her "beliefs". What's actually sickening is that that thought process is the same as terrorists. "The people that don't believe or go by these beliefs deserve to be punished due to them being wrong".
Just don't have sex. How many times does this have to be repeated. Sex is performed for pleasure more than reproduction. It is our natural instinct is to have sex. Wow, what? You're saying the reasonable decision part? You mean like having unprotected sex with people you know aren't good father material, yet decide to the keep the baby anyway?
I didn't counter any points? I've done nothing but counter each of your points. I just repeat myself? Yeah, I have been repeating myself half of the time, and why do you think that is? Because you are repeating yourself, avoiding the counter points I already made for the point you present.
-Sigh- Shut up, will you? I've said constantly that if you get in contact with a lawyer willing to communicate with me on the matter I'll do it, and you ignore that even though I'm saying it in every reply. Face it, you're scared. Patheticly scared. You know you won't phone up to arrange it because it's a stupid suggestion, regardless, I said I would still do it if you set it up.
Awww poor little Wigsplitz can't read? Can't handle the fact that she's being asked to get a lawyer to contact me, then still acts like I haven't asked her to set it up. Don't worry, you're patheticness shows on those merits alone.
TALK TO A LAWYER before you post anymore of this dribble. Seriously. Go. You'll get schooled. And, note that MOST lawyers are MALE. You need to expand your views. YOu are NOT right, you make NO valid points, you sound like a joke. No country would allow tis to hapen.
YOUR taxes will go up to pay for ids that are unsupported. PERIOD. did I say PERIOD? so, you want males to dump their kids, yet you completely FAIL to understand that YOU (via increased taxes) will be paying for kids that aren't even yours.
The responsible party (mom,dad) should be paying. Not you, not me, not every other Tom, Dick and Harry. Idiot.
--
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Talk to a lawyer? Like I said, you set it up due to it being your idea, and I'll accept to talk to them if they accept to it. I've said this on every reply to you, and you choose to ignore it. So either be willing to make your suggestion happen, or don't suggest it.
-Sigh-
If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong. I have countered all of your points, you're just too arrogant to accept it.
I sound like a joke, even though I've gone through every part ofeach of your comments, and made counter points for each one. When you knopw you can't counter my points, you resort to petty insults, and the claim "You're wrong because I said so".
-Facepalm-
Like I said, take the money away from the women that made the wrong choices so that the money can be given for males to make a choice at all. You avoid these points I make and made, just so you can think you have a point, even when my past points have already proved your current pointswrong, and I have to repeat myself.
And my taxes will go down if the money wasn't needed for child benefits. So, what's your point? If your point is taxes, then taken away child benefits will lessen them. But I know what your point is, it's not for the child, the taxpayers or the women, you are arguing so that males don't get as much choice as women, and it's that simple.
Keep the points coming, I will counter them each time.
--
wigsplitz
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
See More Comments =>
You haven't countered anything, you just keep repeating yourself over and over.
Why the hell should I set you up with a lawyer? YOU made the claim, YOU do the research. You've done NO research, NONE. Since YOU brought up the topic, YOU are obligated to find the evidence, duh.
You're*
--
wigsplitz
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
First of all...shut up....talk to REAL people like lawyers, lawmakers, taxpayers, etc...and THEN come back. Serously. Or are you too afraid?
You just come on here, where most people don't pay taxes, don't make laws, have NO clue how the system works, are probably under 18 (or VERY young) and have NO clue.
Talk to some REAL people who actually work in such fields.
But you're too scared. I know, it's scary. But try it. Then come back with your findings. I doubt you will, too afraid of being proven completely wrong and looking like even more of a complete fool than you already are.
--
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
AM I too afraid? Didn't you read the last part? You want me to talk to such people, and this debate with you has gone on for more than two hours. Do you really think any of those people are going to sit and take part of a two hour debate that gives them no financial profit? If you believe that they would, you should gather some new thoughts.
Like I said, I have no problem talking to them, and since you want it to happen, you can set it up. Contact a lawyer or judge etc, inform them of how long this debate has taken, then ask them to take part of it with no pay. If they agree to doing so, then I'll do it. By your same logic, if you say you're not going to, it's because you're "afraid to actually contact them".
Oh, so most people on here have no idea, do they? You do? Oh, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, oh great Wigsplitz, but I don't think you understand, you can put your self on a high horse, but don't expect anyone else to see you sitting on it. Infact, expect me to pull you off it, kind of like I am now.
I'm nineteen. I have "no clue" yet I am countering all your points. Must be irritating, trying to make someones input seem stupid when they're completely dominating the debate.
Like I said. You want me to do it, so I will if you set it up. I like how you avoid that bit, the bit where I ask you to make it happen due to you wanting it to happen. See, it's not the actual debate that makes me think I'll makle a fool of myself, it's expectiing such busy people to take part in a two hour plus debate that started online...
Need what I said repeated? Like you do most of the time? Ok.
Set it up for me since you want it to happen, and I'll talk to a lawyer or judge.
Set it up for me since you want it to happen, and I'll talk to a lawyer or judge.
Set it up for me since you want it to happen, and I'll talk to a lawyer or judge.
Set it up for me since you want it to happen, and I'll talk to a lawyer or judge.
Set it up for me since you want it to happen, and I'll talk to a lawyer or judge.
Set it up for me since you want it to happen, and I'll talk to a lawyer or judge.
Something tells me you'll choose to ignore what I said here.
Anyway, on to countering your other points, if you can call them points. -Sigh-
--
wigsplitz
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
See More Comments =>
YOu set it up, it's YOUR fight. I already know the outcome. You're the one who needs to see it for yourself.
You always do this....you make claims, pandering to mostly teenagers who don't know anything about the law or family court, or anything like that. YOU set it up.....it's YOUR issue. You want to fight for it, you have the burden of proof.
If you can find a group of lawyers, judges and other informed individuals in this matter, then I will concede and deem you the king of the issue.
I'm not ignoring anything you say. I read it all, I get your 'point', OK? All I'm asking you for is some VALID, legal opinions on the matter. Otherwise it's just a bunch of shit. So, PROVE it's a good idea that should be considered. I'll be waiting.
Oh, really? Ok. Same sense. If the woman expected a man to financially support them, but isn't able to, shouldn't of had sex with the man.
No money to keep child or self alive due to the father not financially supporting, shouldn't of had sex.
Want child benefits off of tax payers, shouldn't of had sex.
It's not the same for women, because they get child benefits spent on the child and themselves, where as a man is expected to pay, and the female receives.
--
wigsplitz
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
-
wigsplitz
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Child support is for KIDS, not women to spend willy-nilly. Alimony is for ex-wives, not child support.
Any REAL man would want to ensure their kid was taken care of. Guess you're not a real man.
--
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Replied to this part in the reply above your reply above this one.
Shouldn't have sex in the first place if you don't want to support a kid. DUH. Problem completely solved.
--
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
By that sense, you are against abortion or adoption.
But since what you said is obviously stupid due to the fact that sex is mainly used for pleasure, not reproduction, all I can do is laugh at your "duh", since it is added on, as if your point was at all correct.
Child support is for kids, but most of the time the female spends the money on herself aswell. Like "you" said, "People shouldn't have to pay for othe peoples kids". And now you're syaing child support is for kids, as if it's not a bad thing for everyone but the mother and child.
Sorry, Wigsplitz, you're not a man, you have no idea on what a real man is, so don't try to pretend you do.
"Any real man would want to take care of the kid they never wanted". No, that's saying that a "real man" ahas tobend to the needs of the mother simply because the law allows it, even though he never wanted the child. That's what a "real man" is to you? Just demonstrates that you have no idea what a real man is.
I would supprt the child "If I intentionally impregnated the woman". By that logic, you deem all females that either adoptor abort their child as weak, and not real women. You're supposed to be on the female side, not unintentionally implying insults about them.
What I love is that now, since you know you can't prove any ofmy points wrong, you're filling your comments with insults more than actual points to say you're right. What's wrong? No good points to fall back on, so you have to fall back on insults?
Keep this coming, Wigsplitz, I can do this forever, and the outcome will be the same; me winning the debate.
Last night I wasextremely tired, and yet I was completely dominating the debate. Do you really think you'll get far with me when I'm fully awake? I litrally just woke up this second, eagr to see your reply, and in my wakened dazed state, I still accuratly prove you wrong.
--
wigsplitz
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Again, you THINK you're winning. The laws and common sense say otherwise. When this becomes law, then I'll concede that you won. So, that will be, um, never?
Why is it always win/lose? It IS possible to discuss things in a rational manner, you know. You have to look at all points of view. In order to defeat your enemy, you have to understand them, no? So how can you do that if all you do is rub people the wrong way and refuse to listen to the concerns of others?
Let's just say you got into a position to present your idea s an actual bill people could vote on. How do you expect to get the bill passed by the way you're acting and the way you talk to people? It's absurd. Calm down.
Wrong. It amazes me that you call and imply that I'm the moron here.
Sex isn't mainly used for reproduction in today's world, it's for pleasure. Most people that have sex aren't doing it to have a child. So no, it isn't as simple as you put it at the start of sex should mean parenthood.
If both want a child, then both are equally responsible. If one doesn't, yet it happens anyway, then they aren't equally responsible. If a woman choses a partner that everybody knows will not make good father material, and with most probability, wasn't even planning on sticking around for the relationship, then it's mainly her fault for picking such a man to have a child with. Is it an employees fault if he was hired by a boss, when the employee has no skill in the workforce, yet the boss hires him anyway, and the employee does a bad job? Whos fault is it for the work not being done properly? The man that lacked the qualities to do the job, or the boss's fault for hiring someone that lacked the qualities and knew they lacked the qualities? Same argument.
You can't fall pregnant to a man that can barely financially support himself, then expect him to stick around when he is expected to support a family, when he can't support himself financially. If the woman knew the qualities and limitations the man had, then she is responsible if the father doesn't stick around. None of them would survive if they were expecting to live off of a man that can't financially even support himself.
Your whole logic is like blaming the cake for a person being fat. It's just plain stupid.
Regardless, I've already explained why that part is just wrong, and yet I have to repeat it simply because you can't accept it.
Blackmail a woman in to having an abortion? What are you talking about? Where have I said that anyone has the right to blackmail someone in to abortion. Perhaps focus on what's being said rather than what you think is being said. Pretty sure you already tried to make it seem like I think blackmailing a woman to have an abortion is justified, when I think the opposite.
Ah, how's that fair? So when a male is required to pay money for the child and he doesn't want to, he should of "Kept it in his pants". But when a woman gets some form of free food, and child benefits, it's poor her? Yeah, because having to pay for a child they never wanted by having to work to pay for that child they never wanted is totally the same as getting free forms of food. -Sigh-
Well, if she doesn't like it that way, then she should of "kept it in her pants". Oh how I can tell you will be hating that being said, "That women should keep it in their pants" if they don't want to have to go through the responsibility of parenthood. Annoying right? Just like how many times you and others have said the male should keep it in his pants, then you expect me to pity females for getting free forms of food for their kids, while males have to work and pay for giving food to the child they never wanted, which cripples him for wanting to make a family with someone he can financially support due to paying for the kid he never wanted. Good insight on equality there.
If they have kids to men that don't support them, then that's their faults. Why would anyone in their right mind get pregnant to such people? So it's automaticly the man's fault for the woman "deciding" to "keep" a baby that the man that she knows won't help bring up? Who in the right mind would keep a child under those living ways? So it's the man's fault for the woman deciding to keep the child that wouldn't be properly supported...I just love your sense of equality, the whole "It's always the male's fault" part of equality...
Oh? So now it's unfair for the taxes to rise for unwanted kids? A minute ago you were saying it's unfair for people to pay for kids that aren't theirs at all, up until I proved to you that people already do it for single mothers. So now you change your tune? It's gone from not fair for paying at all, to not fair to pay more? So let me get this straight. You find it unfair that people should pay money for a man's choice through finiancial abortion, yet don't have a problem with people paying for women to have money because they didn't take the time to find a man that wants to be a father? Yeah good one.
So it's ok for women to get tax payers money spent on them, but not males? What a joke. You're jumping around looking for any point to make, even if it doesn't have any point at all.
How about nobody gets their taxes spent on parents? How about that?
--
DolphinAngel
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
ItDuz I love your rational, well thought and not emotional comments and how you fight against people like wigsplitz e.g. who don't get it or are just too ignorant to even try thinking rational... they aren't worth those arguments!
I know that by myself because wigsplitz argumented against me before.
--
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Thanks. Yes, I would have to agree. I have actually lost track of how many times she argued with me. The last time she argued with me, she made the same point. For some odd reason I was too tired to debate with anyone for the amount of time I usually do, that period of time went on for about two to three months. But, luckily I've gotten back in to the old debating ways I used to be in, so I thought about her points and made counter points.
Unfortunatly, some people are just like that. It's people like them that stopped me debate about equality on behalf of the female gender alone, and started thinking about both sides of equality, the way it should be focused.
Thanks for your reply.
Would you believe that it's 3:20 and I'm up debating? Very tired. I might go to bed and pick this debate up tomorow. I mean, given that I'm doing it while I'm extremely tired, I think I'd have much more energy and focus to debate twice the amount I have with him/her at this time of night.
Thanks again.
--
DolphinAngel
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
I know, that happens to me all the time especially the point with the time^^
You: having to pay for kids that aren't yours is wrong! Never thought about that part on taxes, did you?
Me: People are basically taxed to raise kids that aren't their own, for single mothers. And you are complaining that money is being spent to bring up kids, saying it's unfair that tax payers have to pay for kids that aren't theirs at all?
You. Yeah, but they'd have to pay more! Women getting money from tax payers to raise a kid is ok, doing it for men is not!
Me: So you have gone to "Paying money for kids that aren't yours is wrong" to "Paying more money for kids that aren't yours is wrong"?
I have an idea. How about we take away the child benefits, and make all the tax money that goes to that go to financial abortion? Women are more than capable at getting jobs to support themselves and their child, due to them leaving colleges and universities with the most grades etc.
Really? Funny, how I don't know what fair is, yet you can't properly explain why it's not fair, only say it's not fair. Paying money for kids that aren't yours isn't fair switched to paying "more" money for kids that aren't yours is unfair simply due to me pointing out the fact that people pay single mothers for kids that aren't the tax payers', even though half of it goes on the mother, not the child.
But hey, feel free to explain "why" I don't know what fair is. Give me examples, and like everything else, I'll counter it. And before you say "You haven't countered anything" Prove that I haven't, because my comments alone prove that I have, and the fact that you're flip flopping your idea, avoiding important parts I include, shows that I have accuratly countered your points.
I have no arguement, yet all you can do is say I have no argument, and still not give me answeres to most of what my replies claim. "You have no argument! Oh, the majority of the points you made don't have any counters by me?...Well, em, I just don't want to counter them...Yeah, that's why". To quote the oh so great you: "What a joke".
--
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
If you want, I will make you a list of things from my replies to you that you have completely avoided, the ones you avoid answering, yet still insist I have no argument dispite you not able to answer the majority of the points made.
Want that list? I'll be more than happy to make one. But let me guess "You don't have the time" or "The points are irrelevant" etc, etc, yada, yada. I'm certain you'll make some excuse to not have to answer the majority of my points you choose to ignore.
Yeah, and how would others like to not have to pay for the single mothers that had children to a men that was obviously going to bail? I'm sure they'd like that, too. I know I would like that.
The only way for it to be fair is for males to get financial abortions, like females get abortion, or females don't get the tax payers money given to them to pay for children that aren't theirs, just like males won't get tax payers money spent on them for financial abortion. Now if you say that it isn't fair, I'm going to just facepalm so much, since you claime to know more about fairness than me. But, if you were to say it isn't fair, I expect an explantion on why it isn't. I'll have a counter in less than a minute for it.
"Look at the big picture. It's NOT fair for people to have to pay for kids that aren't theirs."
-Facepalm-
I repeated it three times, and put a part in capitals just so you can get it through what ever you call a brain, and understand a counter for that part. "Child benefits" Need it repeated? Either way, you'll still avoid it. Yes, it is unfair, but it still happens for women, what was it again? Oh yes, child benefits. Need it repeated? I would guess so. Chiiiiiiild benefiiiiiiiiiits...Still not got it? Fine, I'll repeat again. Child benefits. Child benefits. Child benefits. Child benefits...Do you get it now? Yes, it's unfair, but single mothers still get the tax payers money spent on them. You sit their claiming it's unfair that tax payers have to pay for someone elses child, yet I keep giving you a fact that they do it for single mothers. What you actually mean, is that it's unfair for the tax payers to pay for someone elses child for the benefit of males. That's what you really mean, even though you'd never admit it.
"Ahahahahahaha call a lawyer, call a judge. Ahahahahahahaha". Oh what a joke you are. Really. I just gave you counter point after counter point. Simply because something won't happen, doesn't mean something should happen.
I know I'm wrong, yet I've given counter point after counter point against you, and you're flopping around trying to figure out to counter me, in which I just counter you right back.
Face it, you're losing this one. Saying I'm wrong and proving I'm wrong are two different things, and you're only doing one of those...Guess which one that is.
-Sigh- You remind me of a child in the schoolyard. "You're wrong, you're wrong" then asked why, they just say "Because you're wrong" unable to make any "real" reason that can't be countered points.
I'm still waiting if you want to make any "new" points, despite me being able to counter them, simply because I've already countered them, yet you keep saying the same thing that has already been countered.
Sarcasm only works when you have the winning edge, you don't. Your little ending paragraph was more of a "I can't prove you wrong, so I'll tell you to do something NOBODY would ever be willing to do in order to settle a debate online.
The fact that you think any lawyer or judge would take time out of their careers to actually have a conversation with me on this topic without getting paid is just the typie of moronic thing I have come to expect out of you.
Better idea. phone up a lawyer/judge, and ask them "Would you be willing to listen to someones opinion on equality for no pay? The discussion has gone on for about two hours, but I'm sure you'd be willing to spend that time out of your career and private life, right?
You go ahead and do that, and then see who's the laughing stock.
The person that stated that all (or most) of the ground was linked together was laughed at for saying such a thing, but several years later due to fossil findings, it was proven to be true. If I was given the time, I could do the same with a lawyer/judge. But, even though my mother's job at a certain time in her life involved helping females with problems involved in this post, I could prove her wrong and make her see my point and agree.
I'd be more than happy to be in a conversation with a lawyer/judge through email. Go ahead and set it up for me, after all, you're the one wanting me to do it.
Can't wait to see your response there. Dare I say it, for the third time on this site ever. Yes I shall. "LOL".
--
wigsplitz
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
I'm not losing anything, you're the one who's being rude.
Let's go point by point.
OK...
ABSOLUTE MAIN POINT: (!!!!!!)
States WILL NOT pay assistance without a good faith attempt to find and charge the bio father. Why should the state (and taxpayers) pay for a kid that isn't theirs? It's the LAW. Before ANY assistance is given, one must go through family court to get the rightful person to pay (whether it's a mother OR father)...as it should be.
1. First point: You want to coerce women into having abortions, That's indisputable, you've made that clear time and again. WRONG!!
What if a woman doesn't believe in abortions? So she's screwed because she holds her beliefs above your demands?
2. The amount of taxpayer money that will go to unsupported kids will skyrocket. Guess what? That means YOU and YOUR tax money too!! So, if you have NO kids, guess what, you'll be paying for other people's kids via taxes. You really want that?
3. Other innocent taxpayers don't want to pay for unsupported kids, and why should they? As I described to you before, 98% of shoppers don't steal, but EVERYONE pays for the thieves theft by higher prices. Is THAT fair?? NO!!
It doesn't even matter because it will never happen and it's a fucking stupid idea. The only people who will agree with you are morons who are deadbeats themselves. That's why I said to talk to a lawyer. Can't talk to a lawyer, then go sit in on court. Learn something. How idiotic.
--
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Oh the irony. How you say for me to go through what you say "poinbt by point" yet you have completely avoided ansering the things you said you would gladly counter that I went through "point by point". -Facepalm-
I'm going to completely dominate you at your own points, because you obviously like to avoid all the main points I made specificly for you to answer that had everything to do with this topic.
You're right, why should anybody pay for a child that isn't theres. Like I keep saying "Child support". People "are" paying for children that aren't theirs because women are deciding to have kids to men that aren't willing or can financially support a themselves, let alone a family, but expect such men to turn in to high powered business men if they fall pregnant. If you even say "you keep repeating that part" to me, I will just go in to a fit of laughter. Because you keep avoiding that I point out how you say tax payers paying for other children is wrong, when most of the child support goes to women and kids that aren't the tax payers. You fail to mention that's wrong. What was it I said? Take the money from the person that gets child benefits, the ones that get money due to having to pay for a single mother's child due to her choosing to keep the child who's father can't or won't financially support the child, expecting to get tax payers money for their choice to keep the child, and give it to financial abortion so they can atleast get the choice females have.
First point? Easily countered.
Wrong, I am not coercing women in to having abortions. The woman gets to choose on her own free will if she'll keep the child or not. I'm saying the male will have the same choice as the female on the "parent's" role. If she wants to keep the child, that's completely up to her, but she should expect to be able to financially support it. This would also maybe make women wanting kids look for actual father material men that want kids that will actually support them and be there for the child, rather than getting pregnant to a man that she knows won't be able to financially support her, then expecting the tax payers to pay her child benefits.
Second point. Easily countered aswell, but I'll do two points, since you still avoid acknowledging that people are already paying for kids that aren't theirs thanks to single mothers that couldn't wait to find a proper father material man to have a child with:
Child support. People are still paying for those kids that aren't theirs, just on the behalf of women. Wrong. If anything, in the long run every form of paying for children that aren't yours will lower the taxes. If women don't get supported by the tax payers money, then they're going to have to get used to the idea that they can't have children with just anyone, they'd have to look for men that want to be a father, can be a father, and financially support the family. When females get it through to them that they need to find a father material man to have a child with, or face not being able to survive without financially supporting the child by themselves, they will look for men that will stick around, and financially support their child, meaning the tax payers won't be paying for the single mother's child due to her having to have a child that will be raised in the proper family setting, and with a parent working to financially support the family.
Third point.
You're right, why should they? "They are". God, fucking read, will you? People already are paying for children that aren't theirs. Do you need it slapped across your face to understand that that's where child benefits come from? Do you need a slide show to help you? God. It's like you need a five hour documentary to understand that one single point.
So yes, "why should they". How about the money that goes to child benefits from the tax payers get their money to go toward financial abortion? So that "their" money goes to "them" and not to a child that isn't theirs.
--
wigsplitz
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
See More Comments =>
-
wigsplitz
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
See More Comments =>
-
[Old Memory]
12 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Yes, people ARE paying for kids that aren't theirs. But...HELLO!! If it was legal for a man to abandon his kid financially for life, then how many MORE kids will other people have to support? MILLIONS. Who can afford that? Why would a state go for that/ They wouldn't, they DON'T currently. There's NO way a state would allow people male or female to NOT support thier kids, how is that logical? The state doesn't want to pay, the taxpayers don't want to pay. The PARENTS should be paying. Period. So, counter that, smartiepants.
OK, you win....whatever....when you take this to the legislature, and they are just beaming over your brilliant idea, then give me a holler. I'll be waiting.
I'm not even going to bother with you anymore, you ask a question, people try to show you flaws in your plan and you refuse to even listen. How do you expect to learn ANYTHING if you NEVER listen.
Plus, you're just a kid, you have NO clue how the world works. Give it time.
The fact that you REFUSE to talk to a lawyer proves all points....you know damn well they'd have a good, hearty laugh at your expense because your idea is plain absurd. Scaredy cat. If you have so much confidence in your plan, and think you're SOOOOOO right, then why not talk to lawmakers?
I don't counter all your points because for one thing, they're not points, they're half-baked notions. No need to point out how retarded they are.
Funny how you kiss ass to the 3 idiots who agree with you, yet anyone who goes against you, you tear into instead of listening to their concerns. Don't you know, people who want to innovate or change things NEED opinions of all sorts in order to fine tune their agenda. You lack that skill, therefore you will never get anywhere. Do you think many successful and powerful people got that way by being a close-minded prick? No, they didn't.
So, with that, I'll see ya around, but as for this discussion, I'm out. Learn to read and be more tolerant instead of flying into a rage every time someone disagrees with you. It's black and white with you, if someone agrees, you LOVE them. Disagree, and they've become your worst enemy. That's not how to get tings done. Talk to professionals, find out how successful people 'made it'. That should help you. Of course, maybe not because they'd probably criticize your attitude and mannerisms. You'll never get anywhere in life acting like this.
See ya.
Ah yes, you mean like my mother? Someone that has worked with people that would be involved in situations this debate is about? She fully agrees that financial abortion should be allowed. How about people such as the Youtuber "TheAmazingAtheist"? How about the Youtuber "Girlwrites what", a mother of three children, just like my mother?
Only people that will agree with me are morons? I've just proven every popint you have wrong, then when I show you more points that you can't counter, specificly to show you that you can't counter them, you avoid answering them at all. You can't call someone a moron if you can't even counter their points.
Like I said, you set it up, and I'll talk to them. Yes, sit in court, then what? All I can do is sit and listen. If I was to say something that is an accurate counter point, I would be flung out, not because of the point being presented, but because of me speaking in a case that has nothing to do with me. So repeat the bit that comes after that bit, you know, the bit about learning something.
How idiotic, how idiotic, how idiotic, you moron, you moron, idiot, idiot, etc, etc, yada, yada.
Those fricken statements only work and can be taken seriously if you are winning the debate. As I explained, I have already won this debate due to you refusing to answer the main point I presented, presented just to prove you couldn't answer them, in which case you couldn'teven attempt to.
Calling someone who's winning a debate while you lose a debate am idiot, or say their claim is idiotic, even when you're losing the whole debate of whether or not it's idiotic, is just plain stupid. You're an idiot. And see how I am able to do that and it actually can be considered an accurate statement? That's because I won this debate.
The sad thing is, you know you lost this debate, and I know you know it. You just can't admit defeat, even when you have been beaten to the ground in this debate. It's just plain sad. The more you try to make a point, the easier it gets for me, because with each point of yours I counter, you flip flop to an even easier point to counter, or just repeat a point I have already countered.
I introduced this to the nice users of the chat room. Even they are sitting there like "What the fuck?" at your selfproclaimed counter points.
Keep them coming, Wigsplitz. I can counter any point you throw at me, where as all you can do is hide from mine.
But I guess I should apologize, I gave you the false impression that you could win a debate with me due to not making as much effort in my earlier debates with you. You obviously noticed the difference between our debates from now and from last time we debated. Want to know the reason why the sudden change? On how the taxpayers argument was different in our last debate than it is now? Simple, the taxpayers arguement wasn't that changed, I did. When we last had our discussion, I wasn't motivated to put much effort in to proving myself right, but now I am back to the way I used to be, motivated to prove my point right, and even more motivated to smash arrogant, pathetic, sarcastic peoples's egos such as yourself, down to the ground in debates.
There is one thing you can learn from this, Wigsplitz, and that is to not engage in a debate with me again in hopes of proving what little point you think you have, unless you want want a long debate that will result in me winning half way through it, then for the rest of the debate, you trying to hold the broken pieced of your fragile ego to the point of making yourself look like an idiot.
You lose.