Badmofo wrote:

---

Oh trust me, I think the money hungry lazy ass women who fight for unfair amounts of support, are giving us mom's, who just want to stay home, a bad name. I choose to stay home and raise my children because I just don't trust other people to give my kids the same compassion that I do.

---

Koodos to you! But unfortunately there are less women like you and more "grubbers" looking for a free ride! I know a few women who are stay at homers, but they are working from their home too and not just collecting the check. Their numbers a few, very few.....

zap wrote:

---

 
I absolutely agree with doing that.  If you can swing it...I think it is the ethically superior position as well.  And I insisted that my ex stayed home at least until our son was old enough to intellegently articulate what happened when we were not with him.

I agree and I am sure your son would appreciate you doing that. We have to look out for our kids. I think that is what is wrong with this world today. People stopped caring about their children and they got lost.






But, for sake of argument...what if the father says..no...I will take care of my child...YOU go work.  Would your position be the same?

Zap, you can't fathom how much i wish I had a job.(I am gonna start pulling out my own teeth for fun)

What about the situation when a guy is paying support and looses his job through no fault of his own....  he is told either find another job and pay the support or go to jail.   Forget going back to school and retraining for a new carreer...I KNOW of a similar situation and the guy was told by the child support people that "If you are paying support you have no right to go to school.  You must work and pay the support"
 

I think this is totally bullshit, of course. I am not a cruel bitch, just an opinionated one.



(btw...not just wanting to piss in your cornflakes)-- Edited by zap at 12:17, 2006-03-10

I don't eat cornflakes.

---

KatScratch wrote:

---

I know a few women who are stay at homers, but they are working from their home too and not just collecting the check. Their numbers a few, very few.....

---

Hey I was thinkin about tryin somethin like that. What kinda business they runnin? just curious. For my research.

ZAP –“In no way do I condone irresponsibility...and I don't agree with abortion in most all cases either.  But if the guy is on the hook to pay for everything...why should he not have a say in what happens??”

Wow, That, in a nut shell, could not be said more simply or better. I totally agree!

I noticed that the “discussion” with mofo and zap did the same problem I always see in abortion “discussions”. The principle of the subject always flip flops from “a woman’s right”, to the “kid”. Simply put, women will say it’s their right because it’s their body, but the future of the kid somehow always gets lumped into that. It’s two separate things. Inconvenient, yes, but it is. If there is a “RESONSIBLITY” then the “kid factor” does exists and like it or not that will belittle the “WOMANS RIGHT” because it’s not just about her. There is a “KID” involved. (Weather future tense or not)

Badmofo wrote:

---

KatScratch wrote: I know a few women who are stay at homers, but they are working from their home too and not just collecting the check. Their numbers a few, very few..... Hey I was thinkin about tryin somethin like that. What kinda business they runnin? just curious. For my research.

---

One of the ladies I know babysits, another does type setting and another does medical transcription (they give her tapes to listen to and type out).

zap wrote:

---

*nod* I totally understand.  Unfortunately just like you and I want a job....or in my case do what I can without one (internet sales and computer work) more and more only look for handouts and entitlements and an excuse for someone else to pay the bill.
Well my husband is in the military, so I don't need money. I just wanna get away a bit each day.

Are you saying you are a dentist?  (boy do I have questions if you are!  8)  )

No, but i find if you brush 3 times everyday and floss, and stick to it you don't need one often.


LOL  fair enough.  I am pissed off this morning...didn't mean to take it out on you ...sorry if I did.

No worries. I was trying to see things from your perspective, but I couldn't get my head that far up my ass.

---

Hahahahaha gotta hate me

*note to self.....E-con agreed with Zap.......* I am still on the right planet aren't I?????

Badmofo wrote:

---

...didn't mean to take it out on you ...sorry if I did. No worries. I was trying to see things from your perspective, but I couldn't get my head that far up my ass. Hahahahaha gotta hate me

---

Considering it strongly......

zap wrote:

---

But...we are talking about an unfair system that you want to leave alone rather that start on the road to fixing it.  Which would throw ALL MEN under the proverbial bus regardless of their good deeds or intentions.

---

Well it doesn't directly affect me. I would not waste my time. I put my energy into more local things like involvement in my son's education, PTO, baseball, etc etc. Not really too political. Just like to voice my opinion when it comes to kids. I am not ashamed to say that I think the reason we have such bad kids running around (9 out of 10 times) is because of the mum's and the dad's.


As in the case that started this thread. How is that kid gonna feel when he/she finds out that his/her daddy and mommy fought about how much money she was worth a month?

-- Edited by Badmofo at 14:30, 2006-03-10

What do you mean pay for everything? I am sure that all the men who pay child support are not "paying for everything". As far as I have known it has always been based on income. If it is through the state it is based on income. If it is through a divorce settlement, I have no idea. If someone is getting raped paying child support throught the courts, then the fault there resides with the judge. And then you could spew off into how our whole court system sucks and we need a system to set up the system to pick our system of judges.

Badmofo wrote:

---

 Quit telling me what I am trying to say.

I wasn't telling what you were trying to say...but rather that what you DID SAY was not accurate.  Deal with it.

 

I know what it is about and have already voiced my opinion.

Then why continue trying to change the topic?

 

 Prevention you can't prevent then you pay the consequences which is a really fucked up system.

I have no clue what that is even trying to mean

 

 Now if I knew the system was fucked up then that would make me take twice the careful me time to rap the damn thing up.

So it is a soley the guy's problem according to you? 

That is the issue...it is NOT just the guy here.  You want the gals to have ALL of the rights....but the guys to have ALL of the responsibilities with no say in anything.

That is the messed up thinking that caused the problem in the first place.

 

 I have spoken my opinion and I am done.

Then why continue circling back to the faulty logic you started with?

 

Zap you could talk a dead man to sleep and it is pointless to try and debate anything with you as I have noticed in the other debate threads.

Only if you are trying to slide intellectually dishonest logic past me.  I have little tollerance for people who do that.  I find that over all...  (that means not EVERYone who does so) they tend to be dishonest and untrustworthy people in most other areas as well.  Again...someone I have little tollerance for.

 

Have a good one, now piss off bugger.-- Edited by Badmofo at 14:56, 2006-03-10

Do you always throw tantrums when you don't get your way??

-- Edited by zap at 15:09, 2006-03-10

There's a big difference between responsibilities and paying a woman to sit at home and pay her rent & utilities for her all in the name of child support! It's not a woman's right to get child support just because she can.... The "concept" of it may have been a good idea, but the way it has actually worked is totally fucked up!

Badmofo wrote:

---

It means. Prevention is the answer. Only have kids if you want to deal with them. If you can't be responsible enough to prevent unwanted pregnancy, then you deal with the fucked up system.

I completely agree with this position up to a point. 

The point where I start to disagree is that you seem to be inferring that the system does not need to be changed.  I completely disagree with that.  However, this is the system in place now and you do have to be responsible or face the consequences of your actions....even if the system should be changed....it does not releave you of responsibility.  BOTH of you.

 

And yes I put the responsibility on the man. If you are too stupid to notice the woman is not trustworthy to stick your dick in, then back off.

Well that is again the issue we are debating.  I think, as do many others as evidenced by the lawsuit, that the responsibility is EQUAL between the male and female that cause the pregnancy.  Both can prevent the pregnancy.  And BOTH are responsible.  Therefore, BOTH should have SAY in the issue.

 

 

Why am I being dishonest for voicing my opinion?

Not at all.  Being intellectually dishonest is totally different than being dishonest for voicing your opinion.

In my opinion, if you can see the logic of a point, yet argue against it simply because it is not in your favor...I think that is being intellectually dishonest.    Basically  as an example, you add up 2+2 and knowing it adds up to 4 you argue that its really 7.

I think that is what happened here when you can't really logically argue that the woman has no responsibility...yet insist that its the guy's problem and responsibility for doing what he did in the process.