Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is mandatory father's custody logical?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Beour3rd View Post

    and ottawa is the same. my entire one side of my family lives in and around ottawa (the family from the east coast)

    within 1 generation that family of 13 kids went from being self sustained fishermen and farmers with amazing women.. i spent my summers out there and heard all the family stories as a kid

    to a dribbling bunch of idiotic liberals who all believe i trudeau and they ALL WORK for the system in one way or another. so right for the governement or for.. assisted living..or.. anything of the sort.


    2 of the 13 siblings have actually owned their own businesses ..etc. etc.. have LIVED.. and they are the two conservatives..
    Interesting. Ottawa is usually pretty conservative. Makes sense if they work for the government though.
    ________________________________
    "Men are told, 'you are nothing until you sweat yourself into something.' Whereas women are told, 'you are great.You are empowered. You have a voice.' We do not demand of you excellence. We instead, will paralyze you with praise." - Stefan Molyneux

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Nikki View Post
      Interesting. Ottawa is usually pretty conservative. Makes sense if they work for the government though.
      ________________________________
      ottawa hasnt been conservative in like 15 years.. when were you last there? its soooo liberal there now
      Originally posted by MatrixTransform
      where were you before you put yourself last?
      Originally posted by TheNarrator
      Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Nikki View Post
        lol... I live in a remote place. Believe me I have seen poverty. The cost of living in the high arctic is so high, yet the minimum wage is the same as the rest of the country. Think $13-15 for a regular size box of cereal. The prices are usually exactly double what they are in southern Canada. There's a facebook group called "feeding my family" if you would like to know more.
        I am not really a fan of FaceBook but I have check some of that group... I find it interesting... so if life sucks so much there... why they don't move?

        *edit*
        I think it's interesting that I made a good point in defense of alimony so instantly that means that I must not know what poverty is and I need you to redefine it for me.
        You didn't made any good point, your point is basically that it is not fair for a devoted mother to live in a minimum wage.

        I trough under the bus the kids instead of the ex-husband, and you where perfectly happy with this... you don't care who pay, as long as someone have to pay. I mean anybody but the woman, she should not pay, such sacrificed mother... it is only fair that she lives like a queen...

        Then your use of the word "help" is sick... What is the problem that the ex-husband help the woman in need? only fair that a judge force him to "help" or send him to jail... This is why so many ex-husbands are "helping" themselves with a 10 gauge.

        You are not even close to make a good argument about alimony.

        And yeah, minimum wage is not really "poverty"... as I say there is much more to consider, not just income.

        In your divorce example they cut in half all the money they made during the relationship, you don't give a number, but it can be $200000 it can be 50 millions... she get half of it, whatever it is, then get a minimum wage job and ask for more... because "fair"... Pretty much like the woman who win the lottery and then get food stamp... because everybody need a little bit of "help"... it's only fair.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by simpleman View Post
          I am not really a fan of FaceBook but I have check some of that group... I find it interesting... so if life sucks so much there... why they don't move?
          Wow, are you trolling me or are you actually that heartless? I don't know how to even begin with this one... You're so uneducated on the topic I'm not sure what to even tell you. Inuit people have only started living in the modern "white" way since the 1960s. Many elders don't even really have a concept of money at all. When they go to the store they just hand wads of money and expect the cashier to be honest. So the ability to teach their children how to save money or spend it wisely is completely nonexistent.
          I'm not sure if you even know anything about the topic, but attempts were made up until the 1990s to "integrate" these people into white society. They are called residential schools. If you want to know where the scum of the earth go to take advantage of innocent children, raping and beating them - they go to remote places. This also happened with the RCMP that worked in these remote areas. Up until 1989, they could pretty much do whatever they wanted. Rapings, beatings and mass abuse of power were the norm.
          So because of the residential schools and essentially, the "experiment" they conducted on the Inuit people, there is little to no trust in the school system, the government, the police or anything whatsoever. There are a few rare people that completely avoided the thing altogether and live on the land to this day. But at least half of the population of those born before a certain year (sometime in the 70s?) has been submitted to residential school abuse. They aren't like a lot of Native (or First Nations if you want to be PC) people that kill stuff and say it's their traditional way just to get what they want... they actually have maintained their traditional ways for the most part. 16 people to a house with three bedrooms is pretty normal. They live on a mix of country food (the term for wild game) and store bought foods.
          They can't move down south because they would be completely abandoning their family, friends, culture and language. So when you are saying they should just "move down south" you are describing word for word the ideas that brought the residential school system into existence.



          You didn't made any good point, your point is basically that it is not fair for a devoted mother to live in a minimum wage.
          No. My point was that no ELDER should have to live in poverty.

          I trough under the bus the kids instead of the ex-husband, and you where perfectly happy with this... you don't care who pay, as long as someone have to pay. I mean anybody but the woman, she should not pay, such sacrificed mother... it is only fair that she lives like a queen...
          It has nothing to do with living like a queen, and everything to do with being looked after in old age. I feel sorry for your parents.

          Then your use of the word "help" is sick... What is the problem that the ex-husband help the woman in need? only fair that a judge force him to "help" or send him to jail... This is why so many ex-husbands are "helping" themselves with a 10 gauge.
          In my example he was the one who chose to leave her for someone else.

          You are not even close to make a good argument about alimony.
          You don't have to agree with me.
          And yeah, minimum wage is not really "poverty"... as I say there is much more to consider, not just income.
          Which is why it would happen on a case by case basis. Obviously if the assets once split up are worth enough for her to live on she doesn't need alimony. Jesus Christ, where do you live that minimum wage isn't poverty? There's a whole vast country that I live in where minimum wage is not poverty. But I just explained to you that there are places that it IS. The women in my example is also retirement age. So I'm not sure why you're even arguing this.

          In your divorce example they cut in half all the money they made during the relationship, you don't give a number, but it can be $200000 it can be 50 millions... she get half of it, whatever it is, then get a minimum wage job and ask for more... because "fair"... Pretty much like the woman who win the lottery and then get food stamp... because everybody need a little bit of "help"... it's only fair.
          I'm sorry, but if I made 50 million and then left my husband for someone else and he was too old to work I'd sure as hell be helping him out so he didn't have to live like a bum.
          Last edited by Nikki; 10-09-2016, 12:53 AM. Reason: my sentence construction didn't make sense.
          "Men are told, 'you are nothing until you sweat yourself into something.' Whereas women are told, 'you are great.You are empowered. You have a voice.' We do not demand of you excellence. We instead, will paralyze you with praise." - Stefan Molyneux

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Nikki View Post
            Wow, are you trolling me or.....
            i wonder that often LOL

            Originally posted by Nikki View Post
            I'm sorry, but if I made 50 million and then left my husband for someone else and he was too old to work I'd sure as hell be helping him out so he didn't have to live like a bum.
            but what if you made 50 million way after you left him? you left him in 2018 and then you got money in 2028?
            Originally posted by MatrixTransform
            where were you before you put yourself last?
            Originally posted by TheNarrator
            Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Beour3rd View Post

              but what if you made 50 million way after you left him? you left him in 2018 and then you got money in 2028?
              I guess that's why you couldn't really call it alimony... because that seems kind of silly.
              "Men are told, 'you are nothing until you sweat yourself into something.' Whereas women are told, 'you are great.You are empowered. You have a voice.' We do not demand of you excellence. We instead, will paralyze you with praise." - Stefan Molyneux

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Nikki View Post
                I guess that's why you couldn't really call it alimony... because that seems kind of silly.
                but isnt that what you're advocating for? the taking of future earnings?
                Originally posted by MatrixTransform
                where were you before you put yourself last?
                Originally posted by TheNarrator
                Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Beour3rd View Post
                  but isnt that what you're advocating for? the taking of future earnings?
                  Only if the initial divorce is putting one of the two parties in serious financial trouble.
                  "Men are told, 'you are nothing until you sweat yourself into something.' Whereas women are told, 'you are great.You are empowered. You have a voice.' We do not demand of you excellence. We instead, will paralyze you with praise." - Stefan Molyneux

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    and only for a short period of time, with the exception of someone who is well beyond retirement age.
                    "Men are told, 'you are nothing until you sweat yourself into something.' Whereas women are told, 'you are great.You are empowered. You have a voice.' We do not demand of you excellence. We instead, will paralyze you with praise." - Stefan Molyneux

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Nikki View Post
                      Wow, are you trolling me or are you actually that heartless? I don't know how to even begin with this one... You're so uneducated on the topic I'm not sure what to even tell you. Inuit people have only started living in the modern "white" way since the 1960s. Many elders don't even really have a concept of money at all. When they go to the store they just hand wads of money and expect the cashier to be honest. So the ability to teach their children how to save money or spend it wisely is completely nonexistent.
                      I'm not sure if you even know anything about the topic, but attempts were made up until the 1990s to "integrate" these people into white society. They are called residential schools. If you want to know where the scum of the earth go to take advantage of innocent children, raping and beating them - they go to remote places. This also happened with the RCMP that worked in these remote areas. Up until 1989, they could pretty much do whatever they wanted. Rapings, beatings and mass abuse of power were the norm.
                      So because of the residential schools and essentially, the "experiment" they conducted on the Inuit people, there is little to no trust in the school system, the government, the police or anything whatsoever. There are a few rare people that completely avoided the thing altogether and live on the land to this day. But at least half of the population of those born before a certain year (sometime in the 70s?) has been submitted to residential school abuse. They aren't like a lot of Native (or First Nations if you want to be PC) people that kill stuff and say it's their traditional way just to get what they want... they actually have maintained their traditional ways for the most part. 16 people to a house with three bedrooms is pretty normal. They live on a mix of country food (the term for wild game) and store bought foods.
                      They can't move down south because they would be completely abandoning their family, friends, culture and language. So when you are saying they should just "move down south" you are describing word for word the ideas that brought the residential school system into existence.
                      Trolling? that is a new one... it seams like the general theory is "autism".

                      Anyway.

                      My ancestors are part of the Jewish people, and historically this is exactly what they do, if stuff doesn't look green and pretty then you pack up your stuff and leave... That is how the moved all the way from Spain to South America in the late 1800 and that is how I then moved from South America to NOrth America... but some of my cousins have move to Europe, and other countries...

                      So the concept of "pack and move" is not foreign to me.

                      I actually have a whole philosophical thing about "what makes us who we are" and environment is a big factor, for me, even more influential than education and genetics.

                      Talking about the native indians. It is their life choice and that is how they are and who they are, and just because they don't have capitalistic goals on their culture does not means that they are living in poverty... I am not trying to be PC here, but honestly it is kinda of offensive that you judge their lifestyle under your values and put them all the way at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder...

                      To my question "if it sucks so much why they don't move?" the answer in this case seams to be that it does not suck so much for them.... it maybe sounds crazy but they are actually happy that way and they don't want it any different.

                      Maybe it is not about what they don't have but what they have... I will not be surprised if they claim that the poor and ignorant is us. I have meet native indians before and that is what they claim, the Kogi and the Jivaro people, at least. this is 2 tribes with miles between them and with the same idea about us.


                      No. My point was that no ELDER should have to live in poverty.
                      Now, that sounds like socialism...

                      It has nothing to do with living like a queen, and everything to do with being looked after in old age. I feel sorry for your parents.
                      Mother, I don't have contact with my father...

                      Ones again... we can talk about the things that she have and the things that she does not have...

                      But the point I want to make here is this: I agree it would be nice if the elder are being "looked after" (whatever it means), so tell me, how is this the responsibility of the ex-husband?

                      Can't we make her ex-teachers responsible for this bill instead? or maybe her ex-pastor? It is only fair that she spend so much time praying on that church that now in her time of needs her ex-pastor "help" her some... no for ever... and if he doesn't, then to the jail with him!

                      Why you pin this responsibility to the ex-husband?

                      In my example he was the one who chose to leave her for someone else.
                      So?

                      You don't have to agree with me.
                      I appreciate you give me this option.

                      Which is why it would happen on a case by case basis. Obviously if the assets once split up are worth enough for her to live on she doesn't need alimony.
                      The argument here is "lifestyle", I do think is a BS argument, but there is people who actually expect to life as good after divorce as they lived when married... In other words alimony is not factored in how much they made but in how much they spend, and her ability to spend can't be lowered by the divorce, otherwise alimony should be put in place to compensate... this why you see celebrity divorces where the woman walk away with 10 millions and alimony of 50k a month...

                      In some way this is your argument too, as I understand your example she lower her economical status after divorce. So even though she walk away with half the assets, for some reason it is necessary that he gave her the other half a bit each month for the next 5 years...

                      Jesus Christ, where do you live that minimum wage isn't poverty?
                      In a place where you spend less than what you make. It doesn't matter how much money someone makes, if that person manage to spend more, then you can talk about poverty.

                      That is how you see people getting a paycheck of 15k a month then run to the casino and at the end of the month have not money to buy food, so they are going around borrowing money with the promise to pay crazy interest on it just so they can eat that week... By all metrics this people are living in poverty.

                      There's a whole vast country that I live in where minimum wage is not poverty. But I just explained to you that there are places that it IS. The women in my example is also retirement age. So I'm not sure why you're even arguing this.
                      When your kids are crying from hunger and you have nothing to give them... but you can't hear their crying anymore so you give them paper, on the hopes that this will trick their bodies to believe there is something on the belly so they stop crying... then that minimum wage, overpriced Kraft dinner would look a lot desirable.

                      Here I am talking about the difference between "poverty" and "extreme poverty".

                      So when I say that minimum wage is not that bad, what I mean is that the person will not live in luxury, but will live in comfort. Granted, will have to sleep in a $100 bed instead of a $1000 bed, but believe me the body does not sleep any worse in the $100 bed, you can still get a really nice, even good quality, sleep. Will have to wear $30 shoes instead of $500 shoes... but this is hardly a tragedy...

                      I'm sorry, but if I made 50 million and then left my husband for someone else and he was too old to work I'd sure as hell be helping him out so he didn't have to live like a bum.
                      And that is great, you are a very sensible and generous person...

                      Now lest imagine the opposite case: Lest imagine that you leave him because he make your life a misery, and now a judge is forcing you to "help" him, or else you get the cops... how would that go?

                      I think this is important because you are advocating for alimony, you talk of yourself and your decision to be generous as an argument to use violence and force to make someone else be as generous as you, with the difference that it will be against their will...

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        @simpleman: Thank you for your thoughtful replies to each point I have made. I'm going to think about this, read it over a few times before I respond. This forum is very interesting. I'm learning a lot and at the moment, I'm taking in a boatload of information (see the videos on my gynocentrism thread lol) so I need to process it.
                        "Men are told, 'you are nothing until you sweat yourself into something.' Whereas women are told, 'you are great.You are empowered. You have a voice.' We do not demand of you excellence. We instead, will paralyze you with praise." - Stefan Molyneux

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Nikki View Post
                          Only if the initial divorce is putting one of the two parties in serious financial trouble.
                          and only for a short period of time, with the exception of someone who is well beyond retirement age.
                          how long? and whats your reasoning?
                          Originally posted by MatrixTransform
                          where were you before you put yourself last?
                          Originally posted by TheNarrator
                          Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            From an historical point of view.

                            Nuclear families are recent. The norm was the extended familly. The person in charge was the patriach (or his widow). He was the only responsible for the deeds of his familly. If his son, his wife got debts, he paid for them.

                            If anyone in his familly got troubles, he was responsible.

                            So, he had the legal power to 'correct' his kind.

                            Father's custody was normal, because he paid for everything, and was held responsible for everything.

                            If his women left him (it happened even back then), he kept the custody of the child because he was responsible for him.

                            Things began to change. On the 19th century, English law changed. It was saw as too cruel to separate children from mothers. But fathers were still considered as responsible, so they have to pay.

                            The modern laws of divorce add layers of rights to women, but changed Nothing about the responsability of men.

                            No fault divorce add the final touch. Men have no power at all, but still have responsabilities.

                            Now, there's a paradigm change. Same sex mariage put a bright light about custodies and allimonies.

                            It's unlikely they gay men and women will accept to pay life allimony or see their kids 2% of the time. And their lobbying power will probably oblige the law to change about that.

                            So, there are chances that the institution of mariage...will be saved by gay marriage. A quite ironic thought.
                            By that, i mean. It's logical from an historical and law making point of view.

                            Things like custody doesn't fall from the sky. It's a long processing story.

                            Father were responsible for the life of their children because they could decide to abandon (or in ancient tim even kill) their children. If they didn't, all of their doing were their responsability.

                            It took a long time to change this to the actual law, and it will take some time to change the current law.

                            I just put one evidence in clear sight. If you want to change the current familly laws, you have to connect with gay parents causes, because they have the lever and the ressources to do it properly (in media, in the courts, in politics).
                            Last edited by Venant; 10-10-2016, 11:22 AM.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X