Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

[BarnOwl]

It's a deliberate tour de force attempt at emulation of John Betjeman's Slough

Or Malvina Reynolds' Little Boxes, which I'm told is based on Daly City:

Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky,
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses
All went to the university,
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and lawyers,
And business executives,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

And they all play on the golf course
And drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children
And the children go to school,
And the children go to summer camp
And then to the university,
Where they are put in boxes
And they come out all the same.

And the boys go into business
And marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

[Gumby]

Hey, just a quick heads up - we're doing Chill Girls in Pink Corvettes today at 9 am PDT and EllenBeth Wachs is our guest today. Feel free to join in and call and shit :D http://t.co/iHePU17DWs

Dang, I won't be around when it's live, but I'm looking forward to the archived version.

[Dave2]

Or there's the flipside, of the woman not wanting to carry the child to term, and the man more than willing to become a father and take care of it. Is it appropriate to shit all over the woman and call her an irreponsible slut then?

Calling her an irresponsible slut is up to you. You have your right to speech. Shitting on her - I'm not into that myself but I think it's fine provided she consents.

[welch]

Tsk tsk rayshul, haven't you heard from the likes of welch? Talking about the inequalities in parental and conception rights in modern society is the equivalent of shitting on an innocent woman and curbchecking her child. It's impossible that you could disagree and not be woman-hating MGTOW. Teh welch has mansplained, and you must submit.

Eh. I just think that we should expect better from our government and our society. If we can't trust our government to look after our children that's the problem, and it isn't really getting solved by forcing people to financially support children they never intended or wanted to have. It's just another form of punishing people for having sex.

Separate issue, and I mostly agree. However, even if the various foster care systems weren't as bad as they are, the idea that "oh, this child is inconvenient for me, I shall let everyone else but me take responsibility and care for them" would still be bullshit writ large. If one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay.

It's more "this child is inconvenient for me, and I had absolutely no choice in the matter, as opposed to the other party who quite clearly did". So much fucking irony. If one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay indeed. I'm going to start saying that to women with unwanted pregnancies. You wanna keep the kid? Own up to the consequences. If the father is willing to pitch in, fucking great for you. He isn't, or doesn't have the capacity/maturity for it? Well shit, maybe you should have been more careful who you fucked. It's clearly "slut shaming" and "sexism", at least when aimed at one sex. It's apparently just deserts when aimed at the other one.

Again, your entire argument uses "IT'S NOT FAIR" as its entire thesis. Okay, you're right. It's not fair. <looks around>. Nope, doesn't change the fucking facts a damned bit. If you have a kid, regardless of intent, (intent not being magic), then spine the fuck up and live up to your responsibilities. I'm sure the people in jail for accidently killing someone one because "they thought the gun was unloaded" or "i just took my eyes off the road for a second, I didn't mean to run that person over" think the fact that THEIR intent should get them off the hook too.

Oh look, it doesn't. Intent doesn't change reality. How the fuck about that.

But fuck it, this is just going around and around now, and we're clearly not going to agree. So go fuck yourself, or your significant other. Make sure to use a condom.

Got the vasectomy, thanks. Oh look, I did plan ahead, and we even had the convo about what happens if the vasectomy fails. OOPS.

But you are right about one thing. It's pretty clear you think responsibility is only for those willing to take it.

[Karmakin]

Well, Silverman's gone all in, making the noises FtBers want to hear -- feminism follows from atheism, rape jokes, uppity women, kick out the misogynists, he's always been a feminist, yadda, yadda. This part made Benson squee:

...The reason I’m wearing this NARAL pin is because I’m a feminist. I’m a proud feminist. And I’ve always been a feminist. Now, American Atheists is not a feminist organization, but I believe pretty firmly that feminism is the inevitable result of atheism, that sexism is rooted in religion. And that’s not a perfect thing, there are other roots of it, the paternalistic societies.

But really when we’re talking about how we’re dealing with this, it’s hard because atheism is all about free speech, atheism is all about open communication, and some atheists are simply not nice people. And just like some Christians are not nice people, and some Jews are not nice people, some atheists are simply not nice people. And there’s a lot of people who are in that middle area, and there’s a lot of misunderstanding. So what I think has to happen is that the feminist voice in atheism has to be protected — protected may be not the right word, but I’ll use it anyways. The voice of feminist has to be protected, it has to be amplified, it has to be helped by the men in atheism and by the women as well. We have to make a stand that says, “It’s just obvious that men and women are equal and it’s also obvious that rape jokes sent to feminist speakers and sent to feminist bloggers, that’s not what good people do.”

At the crux of that, I’ve said many times that the atheism movement is the good guys. We are the good guys! We strive for equality, not advantage, that’s what makes us the good guys. Good guys don’t act like that. They don’t act like that to our enemies, and they don’t act like that to our allies. I have seen people within the atheist movement treat other atheists more poorly than I would treat the worst of our adversaries, and that shames me. That makes me ashamed of them.

I think the Women in Secularism Conference was a huge success, in my personal opinion. I was there, and I though it was great, and it was also packed full — and packed full larger than the first one (it was the second conference), and I hope there’s going to be a WISC 3, I hope there will be a third one. And I think that even if there isn’t, I think the feminist voice in atheism is going to continue to expand, as it should, I think it’s going to diversify more, and we are seeing that diversification within the feminist movement, within the atheism movement. And what I hope, and what I think will happen, is that the atheist movement on the whole will see the anti-feminists for what they are and drop them. And I think that’s going to happen...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/a ... -politics/

So to review:

1. Atheist social justice feminists, who are almost uniformly white, are getting frozen out by major skeptic organizations.
2. Head of major atheist organization, who is defendant in lawsuit claiming racial discrimination, sends them a shout-out by paying homage to their pet cause.

Am I just too cynical or does it look like Silverman is trying to build a ready-made support network should the day come that this discrimination suit threatens his sinecure?

There's also a potential 3. Which is the one I happen to believe. Silverman is has strong pattern-forming tendencies. It's these tendencies that make him support that type of anti-egalitarian gender feminism, and it's the same tendencies that got him into trouble over this racial stuff.

They're both cut from the same cloth.

[welch]

Or there's the flipside, of the woman not wanting to carry the child to term, and the man more than willing to become a father and take care of it. Is it appropriate to shit all over the woman and call her an irreponsible slut then? "Oh boohoo, the child is INCONVENIENT for you? Welp if one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay." Hilariously sexist.

Cry a little louder. I think there's a whale in the indian ocean that didn't hear you. COme on man, squirt a few more. Hell, I don't even need the basket ball at this point, you're full on crybaby. Come on, cry scott. Let me taste your tears.

lemme guess, you got "fucked over" by a woman, didn't you. Come on, cry it out, tell us alllll about the evil bitch and how feminism makes you live on the run with only your crusade and your internet connection to keep you warm. Cry it out, you'll feel so much better.

[LurkerPerson]

Is there a reason you cut off the end of that quote? I thought it was pretty clear it's not a statement I would stand by, because it's incredibly sexist and offensive.
Also I think shitting on pregnant women is probably quite a small subsegment of cophrophilia or whatever shit fetish is called. Although the whole pregnant women thing is a surprisingly popular fetish (sans shit).

[Karmakin]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

[ReneeHendricks]

Oh, and Skeptickle is a co-host :D Back to your regularly programmed 'pit mayhem.

I'll definitely be listening but maybe not when live.

It should be rather interesting :) MHO.

[Dave2]

Is there a reason you cut off the end of that quote?

Yes.

[ReneeHendricks]

Hey, just a quick heads up - we're doing Chill Girls in Pink Corvettes today at 9 am PDT and EllenBeth Wachs is our guest today. Feel free to join in and call and shit :D http://t.co/iHePU17DWs

Dang, I won't be around when it's live, but I'm looking forward to the archived version.

We love archived listens as well. Our archived "Episode #4: Free-for-all Talk!" has over 12K listens. Not too shabby.

[LurkerPerson]

Or there's the flipside, of the woman not wanting to carry the child to term, and the man more than willing to become a father and take care of it. Is it appropriate to shit all over the woman and call her an irreponsible slut then? "Oh boohoo, the child is INCONVENIENT for you? Welp if one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay." Hilariously sexist.

Cry a little louder. I think there's a whale in the indian ocean that didn't hear you. COme on man, squirt a few more. Hell, I don't even need the basket ball at this point, you're full on crybaby. Come on, cry scott. Let me taste your tears.

lemme guess, you got "fucked over" by a woman, didn't you. Come on, cry it out, tell us alllll about the evil bitch and how feminism makes you live on the run with only your crusade and your internet connection to keep you warm. Cry it out, you'll feel so much better.

I think your strawman is showing. Sorry to disapoint you, but no, I never personally suffered from this issue. Amazingly people can care about things without being affected by them. Although maybe tangentially, from a close friend that did get completely fucked over by a particularly vindictive borderline personality nut. Also, I wasn't aware debating with morons like yourself on an internet forum was a "crusade", but thanks for the info. You may also have noticed at no point did I ever say anything about feminism, if you weren't arguing with a construct in your head.

[Karmakin]

Oh and one more thing, on the whole EBW thing. I really do have a lot of empathy for her to be honest. She, in a lot of ways reminds me of my mother-in-law. In short, local politics can be hell on people, and it looks like she's gone through that hell. She thought she found a community that could give her much-needed support, and that's why she went into the whole FTB thing full-tilt.

When you're in that type of atmosphere, everything looks like this super-serious brawl that will always end up back on your front porch. The proof that she has is probably a bit on the over-blown side...some off-the-cuff statements that Melody or RW would be much better at the job than Lindsey, but I'm not going to blame her for it, to be honest, because from that perspective it's perfectly reasonable.

Anyway. That's where I sit on that.

[LurkerPerson]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

What? Government enforced child-support has nothing to do with biology. It is very much a determined attempt to balance out biological facts, i.e attempting to reach a goal of "fairness". Looking at stats for single parent households, it also quite clearly doesn't work best for the most amount of people.

[46, XX]

I thought FTBConscience was funny for a different reason than "con" meaning "with" in Spanish

I thought it was more like they were "con" science (as opposed to being "pro" science)
or even that they were conning science--

[Mykeru]

I think your strawman is showing. Sorry to disapoint you, but no, I never personally suffered from this issue. Amazingly people can care about things without being affected by them. Although maybe tangentially, from a close friend that did get completely fucked over by a particularly vindictive borderline personality nut. Also, I wasn't aware debating with morons like yourself on an internet forum was a "crusade", but thanks for the info. You may also have noticed at no point did I ever say anything about feminism, if you weren't arguing with a construct in your head.

I've already pointed out that it's the MGTOW way to go on and on before they reveal that they aren't even using their own personal anecdotes, but someone's elses "I have friend of a friend" to form their hasty generalizations.

Impressive.

[Kareem]

Internet Activism explained
[youtube]gSjLiQxEZlM[/youtube]

[JustAtheist]

Well, Silverman's gone all in, making the noises FtBers want to hear -- feminism follows from atheism, rape jokes, uppity women, kick out the misogynists, he's always been a feminist, yadda, yadda. This part made Benson squee:

...The reason I’m wearing this NARAL pin is because I’m a feminist. I’m a proud feminist. And I’ve always been a feminist. Now, American Atheists is not a feminist organization, but I believe pretty firmly that feminism is the inevitable result of atheism, that sexism is rooted in religion. And that’s not a perfect thing, there are other roots of it, the paternalistic societies.

But really when we’re talking about how we’re dealing with this, it’s hard because atheism is all about free speech, atheism is all about open communication, and some atheists are simply not nice people. And just like some Christians are not nice people, and some Jews are not nice people, some atheists are simply not nice people. And there’s a lot of people who are in that middle area, and there’s a lot of misunderstanding. So what I think has to happen is that the feminist voice in atheism has to be protected — protected may be not the right word, but I’ll use it anyways. The voice of feminist has to be protected, it has to be amplified, it has to be helped by the men in atheism and by the women as well. We have to make a stand that says, “It’s just obvious that men and women are equal and it’s also obvious that rape jokes sent to feminist speakers and sent to feminist bloggers, that’s not what good people do.”

At the crux of that, I’ve said many times that the atheism movement is the good guys. We are the good guys! We strive for equality, not advantage, that’s what makes us the good guys. Good guys don’t act like that. They don’t act like that to our enemies, and they don’t act like that to our allies. I have seen people within the atheist movement treat other atheists more poorly than I would treat the worst of our adversaries, and that shames me. That makes me ashamed of them.

I think the Women in Secularism Conference was a huge success, in my personal opinion. I was there, and I though it was great, and it was also packed full — and packed full larger than the first one (it was the second conference), and I hope there’s going to be a WISC 3, I hope there will be a third one. And I think that even if there isn’t, I think the feminist voice in atheism is going to continue to expand, as it should, I think it’s going to diversify more, and we are seeing that diversification within the feminist movement, within the atheism movement. And what I hope, and what I think will happen, is that the atheist movement on the whole will see the anti-feminists for what they are and drop them. And I think that’s going to happen...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/21/a ... -politics/

So to review:

1. Atheist social justice feminists, who are almost uniformly white, are getting frozen out by major skeptic organizations.
2. Head of major atheist organization, who is defendant in lawsuit claiming racial discrimination, sends them a shout-out by paying homage to their pet cause.

Am I just too cynical or does it look like Silverman is trying to build a ready-made support network should the day come that this discrimination suit threatens his sinecure?

Hes late to the us or them parade.

[Bill the Cat]

I actually have more respect for the CG than any other branch of the military, even though, or perhaps because of, their non-combat role. Granted, I don't know exactly how they're organized, or what percentage actually does search and rescue, but some of the rescues the CG do are fricking awesome. They'll do things like detect emergency beacons underwater from ships that have sunk, go back to shore, use current maps to track where survivors are, and then go out a hundred miles from shore and snatch people out of the ocean in the middle of the night. Amazing. My hat's off.

Just out of curiosity, why does non-com deserve more respect?

I worked in a 'Naval Reserve Manufacturing Facility' through the 80's. (Making the US Navy's toys - big guns - missile launchers.) Our CO was always a 4 striper line Captain (FYI - the CO of a ship is always called Captain - be it an NCO or an Admiral - Captain Rank is the same as bird colonel in other services.)

There is an old saying - you can sail a (navy) ship without officers - you cannot sail a ship without chiefs. A truer statement has never been made. In my job there were only 3 ranks I consistently addressed Navy personnel by rank without fail Admiral, (my first business presentation I ever made had 3 of 'em in the room - gulp!) Captain, and Chief. Of the 3 - the Chiefs were the most important - they 'get it done'. Their demeanor naturally commanded more attention & authority than even an Admiral.

[LurkerPerson]

I think your strawman is showing. Sorry to disapoint you, but no, I never personally suffered from this issue. Amazingly people can care about things without being affected by them. Although maybe tangentially, from a close friend that did get completely fucked over by a particularly vindictive borderline personality nut. Also, I wasn't aware debating with morons like yourself on an internet forum was a "crusade", but thanks for the info. You may also have noticed at no point did I ever say anything about feminism, if you weren't arguing with a construct in your head.

I've already pointed out that it's the MGTOW way to go on and on before they reveal that they aren't even using their own personal anecdotes, but someone's elses "I have friend of a friend" to form their hasty generalizations.

Impressive.

Ok, sure guys, you got me, I'm secretly I'm an MGTOW "agent". I was just calling them on their misoginy earlier on to cover my tracks. It's impossible that anyone could ever develop an extreme dislike of blatantly fucked up laws after seeing firsthand how a friend was clobbered with them. It's impossible that a woman would ever take advantage of those laws for anything negative, even if they have been literally diagnosed as mentally unstable. I can see why internet skepticism is in the shape it is.

[codelette]

Good news everyone! White lady feminists informs the crowd that Ron Lindsay is still bad (cause "notpology") but David Silverman is good (cause "notpology").
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskepti ... -movement/

Remember, it's a jungle out there...bitches!
http://www.fwweekly.com/wp-content/imag ... /books.jpg

[welch]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

There is one case I'd say the father shouldn't have to pay. The *extremely* rare case, (and I found an example of one), wherein a guy is raped, and a kid results from it. In the case I found, the guy was passed out, and the woman in question got him hard and then basically used him like a turkey baster. (contrary to popular belief, consciousness is not required for erection or ejaculation.)

The only reason I make that exception is for the same reason we insist on a rape allowance for abortion, because it's the same thing. If the guy was raped, and his sperm used to conceive a child, then I do think he should be able to walk away from any and all form of custodial and/or fiscal responsibility for that child, for the same reason that rape is considered a necessary exemption in anti-abortion laws.

Then again, I also think in such cases, the woman should lose custody of the child automatically, and the father be given the option to take custody of the child if he so chooses, but if he refuses, then again, no harm, no foul. Rape is a special situation, and I think it deserves such an exemption for both sides equally.

[JustAtheist]

I think your strawman is showing. Sorry to disapoint you, but no, I never personally suffered from this issue. Amazingly people can care about things without being affected by them. Although maybe tangentially, from a close friend that did get completely fucked over by a particularly vindictive borderline personality nut. Also, I wasn't aware debating with morons like yourself on an internet forum was a "crusade", but thanks for the info. You may also have noticed at no point did I ever say anything about feminism, if you weren't arguing with a construct in your head.

I've already pointed out that it's the MGTOW way to go on and on before they reveal that they aren't even using their own personal anecdotes, but someone's elses "I have friend of a friend" to form their hasty generalizations.

Impressive.

Ok, sure guys, you got me, I'm secretly I'm an MGTOW "agent". I was just calling them on their misoginy earlier on to cover my tracks. It's impossible that anyone could ever develop an extreme dislike of blatantly fucked up laws after seeing firsthand how a friend was clobbered with them. It's impossible that a woman would ever take advantage of those laws for anything negative, even if they have been literally diagnosed as mentally unstable. I can see why internet skepticism is in the shape it is.

No one has claimed that being fucked over doesn't happen. But the answer is clearly not giving a free pass to knock up random women and then have a get out of jail free card for 30 days after you started a growth inside them and then telling them.. hey you can ru486 or abort your problem. Again the better options are taking precautions against creating said growth or making sure your on the same page in the eventual case of that happening. You know being responsible for the choices you made that affect both you, your partner, and the product of that coupling.

[Pitchguest]

Renee, is there a chat we can join?

[Karmakin]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

There is one case I'd say the father shouldn't have to pay. The *extremely* rare case, (and I found an example of one), wherein a guy is raped, and a kid results from it. In the case I found, the guy was passed out, and the woman in question got him hard and then basically used him like a turkey baster. (contrary to popular belief, consciousness is not required for erection or ejaculation.)

The only reason I make that exception is for the same reason we insist on a rape allowance for abortion, because it's the same thing. If the guy was raped, and his sperm used to conceive a child, then I do think he should be able to walk away from any and all form of custodial and/or fiscal responsibility for that child, for the same reason that rape is considered a necessary exemption in anti-abortion laws.

Then again, I also think in such cases, the woman should lose custody of the child automatically, and the father be given the option to take custody of the child if he so chooses, but if he refuses, then again, no harm, no foul. Rape is a special situation, and I think it deserves such an exemption for both sides equally.

Undoubtedly.

[welch]

Or there's the flipside, of the woman not wanting to carry the child to term, and the man more than willing to become a father and take care of it. Is it appropriate to shit all over the woman and call her an irreponsible slut then? "Oh boohoo, the child is INCONVENIENT for you? Welp if one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay." Hilariously sexist.

Cry a little louder. I think there's a whale in the indian ocean that didn't hear you. COme on man, squirt a few more. Hell, I don't even need the basket ball at this point, you're full on crybaby. Come on, cry scott. Let me taste your tears.

lemme guess, you got "fucked over" by a woman, didn't you. Come on, cry it out, tell us alllll about the evil bitch and how feminism makes you live on the run with only your crusade and your internet connection to keep you warm. Cry it out, you'll feel so much better.

I think your strawman is showing. Sorry to disapoint you, but no, I never personally suffered from this issue. Amazingly people can care about things without being affected by them. Although maybe tangentially, from a close friend that did get completely fucked over by a particularly vindictive borderline personality nut. Also, I wasn't aware debating with morons like yourself on an internet forum was a "crusade", but thanks for the info. You may also have noticed at no point did I ever say anything about feminism, if you weren't arguing with a construct in your head.

It wasn't a strawman, it was a possible reason for your towering impotent butthurt crying over life being unfair. Clearly, your parents missed a few crucial discussions with you.

And yeah dude, it's a crusade with you. Looking at the language you use, and the way you frame it? Crusade. You constantly, constantly frame it in revenge terms against "the bitches" or "the women" who evidently do nothing all day long but plot to control your precious bodily fluids.

The problem you're running into here is you assumed this was some kind of MRA haven, and ruh-roh, it's not, and no, people aren't going to stand up, by and large and say "you should only assume responsibility for the things it is convenient for you to do so for."

So cry a little louder. Come on, you're so sexy when you whine.

[welch]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

What? Government enforced child-support has nothing to do with biology. It is very much a determined attempt to balance out biological facts, i.e attempting to reach a goal of "fairness". Looking at stats for single parent households, it also quite clearly doesn't work best for the most amount of people.

But you're so in favor of the government taking over for paying for the inconvenient kids that the evil women sucker you into having. Well, they did. They just did so in a way that's inconvenient for you. Funny how demanding government "do something" bits you in the ass.

[welch]

I think your strawman is showing. Sorry to disapoint you, but no, I never personally suffered from this issue. Amazingly people can care about things without being affected by them. Although maybe tangentially, from a close friend that did get completely fucked over by a particularly vindictive borderline personality nut. Also, I wasn't aware debating with morons like yourself on an internet forum was a "crusade", but thanks for the info. You may also have noticed at no point did I ever say anything about feminism, if you weren't arguing with a construct in your head.

I've already pointed out that it's the MGTOW way to go on and on before they reveal that they aren't even using their own personal anecdotes, but someone's elses "I have friend of a friend" to form their hasty generalizations.

Impressive.

Yeah. "*I*'ve never been suckered by one of them bitches, I do this for guys like my friend who were too innocent and kind to see how evil women really are."

they think that argument is new or something.

[Gumby]

Hey, just a quick heads up - we're doing Chill Girls in Pink Corvettes today at 9 am PDT and EllenBeth Wachs is our guest today. Feel free to join in and call and shit :D http://t.co/iHePU17DWs

Dang, I won't be around when it's live, but I'm looking forward to the archived version.

We love archived listens as well. Our archived "Episode #4: Free-for-all Talk!" has over 12K listens. Not too shabby.

I look forward to it.

Here, give her this present from me!

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd24 ... 2ab3b1.jpg

[Karmakin]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

What? Government enforced child-support has nothing to do with biology. It is very much a determined attempt to balance out biological facts, i.e attempting to reach a goal of "fairness". Looking at stats for single parent households, it also quite clearly doesn't work best for the most amount of people.

But you're so in favor of the government taking over for paying for the inconvenient kids that the evil women sucker you into having. Well, they did. They just did so in a way that's inconvenient for you. Funny how demanding government "do something" bits you in the ass.

The thing is, I'm actually kinda fine with it. I'm OK with the idea of that we should ease up on parental support and increase the amount of government support that exists. I'm not sure if it's the BEST idea, but it's a valid idea.

The problem is that all too often people who espouse the things of the Lurker here are Conservative/Libertarian who don't want to pay for that sort of structure.

[welch]

I actually have more respect for the CG than any other branch of the military, even though, or perhaps because of, their non-combat role. Granted, I don't know exactly how they're organized, or what percentage actually does search and rescue, but some of the rescues the CG do are fricking awesome. They'll do things like detect emergency beacons underwater from ships that have sunk, go back to shore, use current maps to track where survivors are, and then go out a hundred miles from shore and snatch people out of the ocean in the middle of the night. Amazing. My hat's off.

Just out of curiosity, why does non-com deserve more respect?

I worked in a 'Naval Reserve Manufacturing Facility' through the 80's. (Making the US Navy's toys - big guns - missile launchers.) Our CO was always a 4 striper line Captain (FYI - the CO of a ship is always called Captain - be it an NCO or an Admiral - Captain Rank is the same as bird colonel in other services.)

There is an old saying - you can sail a (navy) ship without officers - you cannot sail a ship without chiefs. A truer statement has never been made. In my job there were only 3 ranks I consistently addressed Navy personnel by rank without fail Admiral, (my first business presentation I ever made had 3 of 'em in the room - gulp!) Captain, and Chief. Of the 3 - the Chiefs were the most important - they 'get it done'. Their demeanor naturally commanded more attention & authority than even an Admiral.

an officer can only get you arrested, booted out, or under a very narrow range of circumstances, executed.

A chief can make your life a living hell, year after year after year. Chiefs are the motherfuckers who actually decide things like duty stations, retraining, etc. you have to be a O-6 or above to out-power a chief, and even generals think a beat before fucking with a chief.

[bhoytony]

I actually have more respect for the CG than any other branch of the military, even though, or perhaps because of, their non-combat role. Granted, I don't know exactly how they're organized, or what percentage actually does search and rescue, but some of the rescues the CG do are fricking awesome. They'll do things like detect emergency beacons underwater from ships that have sunk, go back to shore, use current maps to track where survivors are, and then go out a hundred miles from shore and snatch people out of the ocean in the middle of the night. Amazing. My hat's off.

Just out of curiosity, why does non-com deserve more respect?

I worked in a 'Naval Reserve Manufacturing Facility' through the 80's. (Making the US Navy's toys - big guns - missile launchers.) Our CO was always a 4 striper line Captain (FYI - the CO of a ship is always called Captain - be it an NCO or an Admiral - Captain Rank is the same as bird colonel in other services.)

There is an old saying - you can sail a (navy) ship without officers - you cannot sail a ship without chiefs. A truer statement has never been made. In my job there were only 3 ranks I consistently addressed Navy personnel by rank without fail Admiral, (my first business presentation I ever made had 3 of 'em in the room - gulp!) Captain, and Chief. Of the 3 - the Chiefs were the most important - they 'get it done'. Their demeanor naturally commanded more attention & authority than even an Admiral.

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/5757/7me.png

[welch]

I think your strawman is showing. Sorry to disapoint you, but no, I never personally suffered from this issue. Amazingly people can care about things without being affected by them. Although maybe tangentially, from a close friend that did get completely fucked over by a particularly vindictive borderline personality nut. Also, I wasn't aware debating with morons like yourself on an internet forum was a "crusade", but thanks for the info. You may also have noticed at no point did I ever say anything about feminism, if you weren't arguing with a construct in your head.

I've already pointed out that it's the MGTOW way to go on and on before they reveal that they aren't even using their own personal anecdotes, but someone's elses "I have friend of a friend" to form their hasty generalizations.

Impressive.

Ok, sure guys, you got me, I'm secretly I'm an MGTOW "agent". I was just calling them on their misoginy earlier on to cover my tracks. It's impossible that anyone could ever develop an extreme dislike of blatantly fucked up laws after seeing firsthand how a friend was clobbered with them. It's impossible that a woman would ever take advantage of those laws for anything negative, even if they have been literally diagnosed as mentally unstable. I can see why internet skepticism is in the shape it is.

Yes, yes, chester, you're awesome. Keep crying.

Fap, fap, fap.

[welch]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

What? Government enforced child-support has nothing to do with biology. It is very much a determined attempt to balance out biological facts, i.e attempting to reach a goal of "fairness". Looking at stats for single parent households, it also quite clearly doesn't work best for the most amount of people.

But you're so in favor of the government taking over for paying for the inconvenient kids that the evil women sucker you into having. Well, they did. They just did so in a way that's inconvenient for you. Funny how demanding government "do something" bits you in the ass.

The thing is, I'm actually kinda fine with it. I'm OK with the idea of that we should ease up on parental support and increase the amount of government support that exists. I'm not sure if it's the BEST idea, but it's a valid idea.

The problem is that all too often people who espouse the things of the Lurker here are Conservative/Libertarian who don't want to pay for that sort of structure.

I think legit concern should be given to ability to pay. Bankrupting either side serves no one well. But I also know that the more specific you make something, the easier it is to game it, so for every law we add, we add at least one more way to get out of things.

However, the idea that the father should have to pay nothing because "not fair" or "intent" is just foolishness.

[Kareem]

Good news everyone! White lady feminists informs the crowd that Ron Lindsay is still bad (cause "notpology") but David Silverman is good (cause "notpology").
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskepti ... -movement/

Remember, it's a jungle out there...bitches!
http://www.fwweekly.com/wp-content/imag ... /books.jpg

It's weird that a Dongle joke got more comments than an actual lawsuit alleging a hostile workplace. There's just no set standard at that place other then "us good, them bad."

[codelette]

No one has claimed that being fucked over doesn't happen. But the answer is clearly not giving a free pass to knock up random women and then have a get out of jail free card for 30 days after you started a growth inside them and then telling them.. hey you can ru486 or abort your problem. Again the better options are taking precautions against creating said growth or making sure your on the same page in the eventual case of that happening. You know being responsible for the choices you made that affect both you, your partner, and the product of that coupling.

Some people are mentioning the use of RU486 like it is a pill you take for a headache or something. Taking Mifepristone is not an easy breezy procedure. We are not talking about Plan B here; it is a proper abortive method and requires monitoring, recovery and the same risks as a D&C.
Going back to a commentary about both men and women being responsible for pregnancy after consensual sex. Yes, it is that simple. You fuck from someone of the opposite sex there's a big chance of pregnancy resulting from the exchange of fluids. So, if you want to 100% sure that you don't want to deal with pregnancy: don't have sex. This discussion's being around men; but it also applies to women.

I'll give that to the MGTOW separatists; at least they acknowledge that one of the consequences of heterosexual sex is a possible pregnancy and that's they want to avoid it.

[codelette]

"you fuck with someone"

[Kareem]

I'm sure I've heard EllenBeth's voice before, but I still thought she'd sound more European.

[another lurker]

No one has claimed that being fucked over doesn't happen. But the answer is clearly not giving a free pass to knock up random women and then have a get out of jail free card for 30 days after you started a growth inside them and then telling them.. hey you can ru486 or abort your problem. Again the better options are taking precautions against creating said growth or making sure your on the same page in the eventual case of that happening. You know being responsible for the choices you made that affect both you, your partner, and the product of that coupling.

Some people are mentioning the use of RU486 like it is a pill you take for a headache or something. Taking Mifepristone is not an easy breezy procedure. We are not talking about Plan B here; it is a proper abortive method and requires monitoring, recovery and the same risks as a D&C.
Going back to a commentary about both men and women being responsible for pregnancy after consensual sex. Yes, it is that simple. You fuck from someone of the opposite sex there's a big chance of pregnancy resulting from the exchange of fluids. So, if you want to 100% sure that you don't want to deal with pregnancy: don't have sex. This discussion's being around men; but it also applies to women.

I'll give that to the MGTOW separatists; at least they acknowledge that one of the consequences of heterosexual sex is a possible pregnancy and that's they want to avoid it.

RU486 isn't even that easy to get and anti-choice Republicans are trying their damndest to keep it out of the hands of low income women. Gotta make it really expensive, and really hard to get so that by the time a woman CAN take it she is well past the date at which it would be useful. They also don't like the fact that women might have access to Plan B.

[mikelf]

So to review:

1. Atheist social justice feminists, who are almost uniformly white, are getting frozen out by major skeptic organizations.
2. Head of major atheist organization, who is defendant in lawsuit claiming racial discrimination, sends them a shout-out by paying homage to their pet cause.

Am I just too cynical or does it look like Silverman is trying to build a ready-made support network should the day come that this discrimination suit threatens his sinecure?

Hes late to the us or them parade.

Given the way Ophelia is lapping it up, I'd say his timing is fine.

[AndrewV69]

Tsk tsk rayshul, haven't you heard from the likes of welch? Talking about the inequalities in parental and conception rights in modern society is the equivalent of shitting on an innocent woman and curbchecking her child. It's impossible that you could disagree and not be woman-hating MGTOW. Teh welch has mansplained, and you must submit.

Eh. I just think that we should expect better from our government and our society. If we can't trust our government to look after our children that's the problem, and it isn't really getting solved by forcing people to financially support children they never intended or wanted to have. It's just another form of punishing people for having sex.

Separate issue, and I mostly agree. However, even if the various foster care systems weren't as bad as they are, the idea that "oh, this child is inconvenient for me, I shall let everyone else but me take responsibility and care for them" would still be bullshit writ large. If one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay.

It's more "this child is inconvenient for me, and I had absolutely no choice in the matter, as opposed to the other party who quite clearly did". So much fucking irony. If one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay indeed. I'm going to start saying that to women with unwanted pregnancies. You wanna keep the kid? Own up to the consequences. If the father is willing to pitch in, fucking great for you. He isn't, or doesn't have the capacity/maturity for it? Well shit, maybe you should have been more careful who you fucked. It's clearly "slut shaming" and "sexism", at least when aimed at one sex. It's apparently just deserts when aimed at the other one.

But fuck it, this is just going around and around now, and we're clearly not going to agree. So go fuck yourself, or your significant other. Make sure to use a condom.

Well we have not even got into the other issues where it would appear that within a certain socioeconomic group it makes sense to have children and thus qualify for various benefits.

Also another sector where the woman leaves the man and his attitude is to drop support period. I am not sure how large this one is but no amount of sanctions, jail, loss of driver's license is ever going to make him pay. He then works under the table if at all after that.

I recall a study done in Michigan with recommendations to address the issues related to the underground economy and child support.

I do not know how much traction if any of the recommendations made but it is clear that someone is aware of some of the issues.

http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCA ... F-2010.pdf

We acknowledge that many people who work in the underground economy do not earn
enough to pay their debts, and some struggle just to support themselves. But every member of
our task force understands the importance of bringing these individuals aboveground and
making them active members of their families, our society, and our economy. Therefore, we
have not focused exclusively on collections and enforcement. Some underground parents feel,
with justification, that they were forced into the underground economy by an excessive child
support order or an insurmountable debt. We should offer these parents reasonable means of
debt relief and encourage them to come into the fold, to become true parents to their children,
and to reconcile with their families. But none of those good things can happen unless we first
find the parents so we can begin to engage them in discussions about their ability and
responsibility to support their children.

I suggest reading the entire report. It gives some idea of the scale and consequences of the current system. Naturally despite the stated aims I really do not see how some penalties are going to be effective.

For bonus points see how many MRA and/or MGTOW talking points you can spot.

P.S.
One of the benefits of registration is you can put welsh on ignore when he suffers one of his attacks of baboonitist. It is almost impossible to have any sort of discussion with him once he goes full Setar.

[LurkerPerson]

Or there's the flipside, of the woman not wanting to carry the child to term, and the man more than willing to become a father and take care of it. Is it appropriate to shit all over the woman and call her an irreponsible slut then? "Oh boohoo, the child is INCONVENIENT for you? Welp if one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay." Hilariously sexist.

Cry a little louder. I think there's a whale in the indian ocean that didn't hear you. COme on man, squirt a few more. Hell, I don't even need the basket ball at this point, you're full on crybaby. Come on, cry scott. Let me taste your tears.

lemme guess, you got "fucked over" by a woman, didn't you. Come on, cry it out, tell us alllll about the evil bitch and how feminism makes you live on the run with only your crusade and your internet connection to keep you warm. Cry it out, you'll feel so much better.

I think your strawman is showing. Sorry to disapoint you, but no, I never personally suffered from this issue. Amazingly people can care about things without being affected by them. Although maybe tangentially, from a close friend that did get completely fucked over by a particularly vindictive borderline personality nut. Also, I wasn't aware debating with morons like yourself on an internet forum was a "crusade", but thanks for the info. You may also have noticed at no point did I ever say anything about feminism, if you weren't arguing with a construct in your head.

It wasn't a strawman, it was a possible reason for your towering impotent butthurt crying over life being unfair. Clearly, your parents missed a few crucial discussions with you.

And yeah dude, it's a crusade with you. Looking at the language you use, and the way you frame it? Crusade. You constantly, constantly frame it in revenge terms against "the bitches" or "the women" who evidently do nothing all day long but plot to control your precious bodily fluids.

The problem you're running into here is you assumed this was some kind of MRA haven, and ruh-roh, it's not, and no, people aren't going to stand up, by and large and say "you should only assume responsibility for the things it is convenient for you to do so for."

So cry a little louder. Come on, you're so sexy when you whine.

You're an idiot. The disgustingly sexist arguements that seem to have gotten your panties in a twist are just YOUR OWN ARGUEMENTS reversed. Yes, they pissed me off, so I thought I'd reverse them to see if you thought they sounded any better that way. Nope, still ridiculous, offensive bullshit. You're apparently too stupid to realize that and take them at face value.

[LurkerPerson]

Incidentally you probably didn't realize but I've been reading this forum for quite some time, even commented once to say "hi" to Phil, because he's the only other french guy on this forum. There goes the conservative/libertarian guess. A right-wing french politician would be considered a commie in the US. I don't visit MRA or MGTOW forums or blogs or whatever, I probably learned more about their whole movement on this forum than anywhere else.

[Kareem]

re: Radio Show
Is privilege really the same as patriarchy? You can have privilege in certain fields and then be at a disadvantage in others. I don't doubt the disadvantages women have and continue to face, but patriarchy implies some kind of system across the board. I know some feminists respond with "patriarchy hurts men too," but that seems a lot like say A = not-A. If the patriarchy doesn't cater to men or puts them at a disadvantage, then it's not really a patriarchy.

Just my honest thoughts on why I have a problem with patriarchy while I still accept male privilege in certain contexts and situations.

[Mykeru]

Or there's the flipside, of the woman not wanting to carry the child to term, and the man more than willing to become a father and take care of it. Is it appropriate to shit all over the woman and call her an irreponsible slut then? "Oh boohoo, the child is INCONVENIENT for you? Welp if one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay." Hilariously sexist.

Cry a little louder. I think there's a whale in the indian ocean that didn't hear you. COme on man, squirt a few more. Hell, I don't even need the basket ball at this point, you're full on crybaby. Come on, cry scott. Let me taste your tears.

lemme guess, you got "fucked over" by a woman, didn't you. Come on, cry it out, tell us alllll about the evil bitch and how feminism makes you live on the run with only your crusade and your internet connection to keep you warm. Cry it out, you'll feel so much better.

I think your strawman is showing. Sorry to disapoint you, but no, I never personally suffered from this issue. Amazingly people can care about things without being affected by them. Although maybe tangentially, from a close friend that did get completely fucked over by a particularly vindictive borderline personality nut. Also, I wasn't aware debating with morons like yourself on an internet forum was a "crusade", but thanks for the info. You may also have noticed at no point did I ever say anything about feminism, if you weren't arguing with a construct in your head.

It wasn't a strawman, it was a possible reason for your towering impotent butthurt crying over life being unfair. Clearly, your parents missed a few crucial discussions with you.

And yeah dude, it's a crusade with you. Looking at the language you use, and the way you frame it? Crusade. You constantly, constantly frame it in revenge terms against "the bitches" or "the women" who evidently do nothing all day long but plot to control your precious bodily fluids.

The problem you're running into here is you assumed this was some kind of MRA haven, and ruh-roh, it's not, and no, people aren't going to stand up, by and large and say "you should only assume responsibility for the things it is convenient for you to do so for."

So cry a little louder. Come on, you're so sexy when you whine.

You're an idiot. The disgustingly sexist arguements that seem to have gotten your panties in a twist are just YOUR OWN ARGUEMENTS reversed. Yes, they pissed me off, so I thought I'd reverse them to see if you thought they sounded any better that way. Nope, still ridiculous, offensive bullshit. You're apparently too stupid to realize that and take them at face value.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h4/ti ... ou_174.png

That is all.

[AndrewV69]

Or there's the flipside, of the woman not wanting to carry the child to term, and the man more than willing to become a father and take care of it. Is it appropriate to shit all over the woman and call her an irreponsible slut then? "Oh boohoo, the child is INCONVENIENT for you? Welp if one wants to play, one needs to be willing to pay." Hilariously sexist.

Cry a little louder. I think there's a whale in the indian ocean that didn't hear you. COme on man, squirt a few more. Hell, I don't even need the basket ball at this point, you're full on crybaby. Come on, cry scott. Let me taste your tears.

lemme guess, you got "fucked over" by a woman, didn't you. Come on, cry it out, tell us alllll about the evil bitch and how feminism makes you live on the run with only your crusade and your internet connection to keep you warm. Cry it out, you'll feel so much better.

Behold, welch once more in the throes of baboonitist. Predictable. Once this boyo runs out of arguments, or someone fails to comply 100% with his viewpoint you may as well be at FreeFromThoughBlaghs.

welch, seriously. Get a grip.You are not doing yourself any favours at this point.

[codelette]

No one has claimed that being fucked over doesn't happen. But the answer is clearly not giving a free pass to knock up random women and then have a get out of jail free card for 30 days after you started a growth inside them and then telling them.. hey you can ru486 or abort your problem. Again the better options are taking precautions against creating said growth or making sure your on the same page in the eventual case of that happening. You know being responsible for the choices you made that affect both you, your partner, and the product of that coupling.

Some people are mentioning the use of RU486 like it is a pill you take for a headache or something. Taking Mifepristone is not an easy breezy procedure. We are not talking about Plan B here; it is a proper abortive method and requires monitoring, recovery and the same risks as a D&C.
Going back to a commentary about both men and women being responsible for pregnancy after consensual sex. Yes, it is that simple. You fuck from someone of the opposite sex there's a big chance of pregnancy resulting from the exchange of fluids. So, if you want to 100% sure that you don't want to deal with pregnancy: don't have sex. This discussion's being around men; but it also applies to women.

I'll give that to the MGTOW separatists; at least they acknowledge that one of the consequences of heterosexual sex is a possible pregnancy and that's they want to avoid it.

RU486 isn't even that easy to get and anti-choice Republicans are trying their damndest to keep it out of the hands of low income women. Gotta make it really expensive, and really hard to get so that by the time a woman CAN take it she is well past the date at which it would be useful. They also don't like the fact that women might have access to Plan B.

Republicans craziness aside:
RU486 should be difficult to obtain without being given and monitored by a medical facility. Plan B is a different deal as Plan B is a preventive measure not a reactive one like RU 486.

PS. The legislation is not passed to stop low-income women from having children; but middle class white women. As a Hispanic from a poor background, I can attest that BC and other forms of natal control are very VERY easy to obtain. I even received instructions back in the 90s on how to use regular low-dose BC as Plan B (from ProFamilia, which is the PuertoRican version of Planned Parenthood). My mom and all her sisters were given BC and sterilizations for free.

[codelette]

Here's a brochure in Spanish discussing the BC dosis for emergency contraception (second page) http://www.profamiliapr.org/images/stor ... gencia.pdf

[AndrewV69]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

Oh I agree entirely that fairness appears to be the least consideration.

From the perspective of the state, I would guess that it really boils down to the day to day economics, not to mention the long term costs of children raised in poverty.

I believe I mentioned earlier that the incentives need to be rebalanced.

[another lurker]

No one has claimed that being fucked over doesn't happen. But the answer is clearly not giving a free pass to knock up random women and then have a get out of jail free card for 30 days after you started a growth inside them and then telling them.. hey you can ru486 or abort your problem. Again the better options are taking precautions against creating said growth or making sure your on the same page in the eventual case of that happening. You know being responsible for the choices you made that affect both you, your partner, and the product of that coupling.

Some people are mentioning the use of RU486 like it is a pill you take for a headache or something. Taking Mifepristone is not an easy breezy procedure. We are not talking about Plan B here; it is a proper abortive method and requires monitoring, recovery and the same risks as a D&C.
Going back to a commentary about both men and women being responsible for pregnancy after consensual sex. Yes, it is that simple. You fuck from someone of the opposite sex there's a big chance of pregnancy resulting from the exchange of fluids. So, if you want to 100% sure that you don't want to deal with pregnancy: don't have sex. This discussion's being around men; but it also applies to women.

I'll give that to the MGTOW separatists; at least they acknowledge that one of the consequences of heterosexual sex is a possible pregnancy and that's they want to avoid it.

RU486 isn't even that easy to get and anti-choice Republicans are trying their damndest to keep it out of the hands of low income women. Gotta make it really expensive, and really hard to get so that by the time a woman CAN take it she is well past the date at which it would be useful. They also don't like the fact that women might have access to Plan B.

Republicans craziness aside:
RU486 should be difficult to obtain without being given and monitored by a medical facility. Plan B is a different deal as Plan B is a preventive measure not a reactive one like RU 486.

PS. The legislation is not passed to stop low-income women from having children; but middle class white women. As a Hispanic from a poor background, I can attest that BC and other forms of natal control are very VERY easy to obtain. I even received instructions back in the 90s on how to use regular low-dose BC as Plan B (from ProFamilia, which is the PuertoRican version of Planned Parenthood). My mom and all her sisters were given BC and sterilizations for free.

I suspect that low income women from rural areas have the toughest time getting Plan B, and ru-486, let alone any kind of abortion.

What the repubs are trying to do is ban telemed abortions and force these women to take 4 trips to the doctor - which is way more than is required for a surgical abortion and pretty much makes an *early* abortion impossible. It's all part of the plan to make 1st trimester abortions really tough to get, while at the same time, moving viability down to 20 weeks and below 'cuz fetuses masturbate tee hee'

I do agree with you about the 'no abortions for white women'. I love debating abortion, and have spent a lot of time on various right wing forums, and they always let slip the fact that 'there would be no need for (non-white) immigrants if those selfish white bitches didn't keep killin' all those precious white babees.'

[Kareem]

re: Radio Show
Isn't a cat chewing on your hair it's attempt to groom you? I've seen cat lick the hair of people they like.

[another lurker]

re: Radio Show
Isn't a cat chewing on your hair it's attempt to groom you? I've seen cat lick the hair of people they like.

My kitty will lick my hair, and face, if there is salt, from sweat, present.

[codelette]

I suspect that low income women from rural areas have the toughest time getting Plan B, and ru-486, let alone any kind of abortion.

What the repubs are trying to do is ban telemed abortions and force these women to take 4 trips to the doctor - which is way more than is required for a surgical abortion and pretty much makes an *early* abortion impossible. It's all part of the plan to make 1st trimester abortions really tough to get, while at the same time, moving viability down to 20 weeks and below 'cuz fetuses masturbate tee hee'

I do agree with you about the 'no abortions for white women'. I love debating abortion, and have spent a lot of time on various right wing forums, and they always let slip the fact that 'there would be no need for (non-white) immigrants if those selfish white bitches didn't keep killin' all those precious white babees.'

From personal experience; when I had mine in the Deep South (no pun intended), most women at the recovery room were either Black Americans and Hispanics of various ethnicities (myself being a Hispanic mulatto). There wasn't even fundies protesting outside...and I had to go twice (1st visit for medical check-up/orientation, 2nd visit for procedure).

[AndrewV69]

I think your strawman is showing. Sorry to disapoint you, but no, I never personally suffered from this issue. Amazingly people can care about things without being affected by them. Although maybe tangentially, from a close friend that did get completely fucked over by a particularly vindictive borderline personality nut. Also, I wasn't aware debating with morons like yourself on an internet forum was a "crusade", but thanks for the info. You may also have noticed at no point did I ever say anything about feminism, if you weren't arguing with a construct in your head.

I've already pointed out that it's the MGTOW way to go on and on before they reveal that they aren't even using their own personal anecdotes, but someone's elses "I have friend of a friend" to form their hasty generalizations.

Impressive.

See the study I posted earlier. This is a societal issue. Seeing it as purely a MGTOW "thing" does not change he impact of a sufficient number of men fucking off and no longer working within the system.

One way or the other, even if you are not directly involved eventually society as a whole will be adversely impacted if only in taxes.

[codelette]

re: Radio Show
Isn't a cat chewing on your hair it's attempt to groom you? I've seen cat lick the hair of people they like.

One of my cats grooms my hair every night. :D

[Parody Accountant]

<snip>
You really don't understand poker do you? Here's a hint: if you make a bluff and don't get called on it - you win.

I said I didn’t.

But for EBW to be making that accusation and then not delivering on it – even if she has the goods – is still going to leave a bad taste; many will quite reasonably think that she was in fact bluffing. Maybe an acceptable policy in a game of cards; not so much elsewhere.

But I’ll agree that poker may not be the best analogy – at least for most versions of the game – as the hand in poker can end without anyone else knowing what cards were really held. Seemingly not applicable in EBW's case.

I'm sure if she isn't bluffing, but doesn't deliver, she's not wanting to publicize private information. Though she is probably legally entitled to do so, she may feel ethically entitled to do so only if her claim is denied by the offending parties.

[AndrewV69]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

There is one case I'd say the father shouldn't have to pay. The *extremely* rare case, (and I found an example of one), wherein a guy is raped, and a kid results from it. In the case I found, the guy was passed out, and the woman in question got him hard and then basically used him like a turkey baster. (contrary to popular belief, consciousness is not required for erection or ejaculation.)

The only reason I make that exception is for the same reason we insist on a rape allowance for abortion, because it's the same thing. If the guy was raped, and his sperm used to conceive a child, then I do think he should be able to walk away from any and all form of custodial and/or fiscal responsibility for that child, for the same reason that rape is considered a necessary exemption in anti-abortion laws.

Then again, I also think in such cases, the woman should lose custody of the child automatically, and the father be given the option to take custody of the child if he so chooses, but if he refuses, then again, no harm, no foul. Rape is a special situation, and I think it deserves such an exemption for both sides equally.

And if the "father" is a minor?

Woman, 36, charged after having baby fathered by 11-year-old boy
http://www.theage.com.au/world/woman-36 ... 2oapu.html

Though the woman was given name suppression, Judge Connell said it was a close-run thing and "the public should be aware she could well be a predator in terms of this sexual offending".

At the time clinical psychologist Luanda Young said she would not be surprised if the case was "just the tip of the iceberg" and there would be more incidents of older women preying on boys.

As I recall she can not be charged with rape. Note her name is withheld.

Oh apparently she can not be charged with rape I understand. Only men can rape in New Zealand it seems.

Spot any MRA talking point?

[Kareem]

The idea of Ellenbeth Wachs reading Malcolm X does make me chuckle.
Am I racist?

[Mykeru]

welch, seriously. Get a grip.You are not doing yourself any favours at this point.

I love it when you come down from the mountain and throw your stone tablets.

[AndrewV69]

Just to add on to what Welch said. This subject (parentage) is NEVER EVER going to be fair. It's IMPOSSIBLE for it to be fair because there are such significant differences biologically at play here. So it's not about fairness, it's about creating a system that works the best for the most amount of people, with an added emphasis in this case being given to children.

We can debate about what this system would be....but it's never going to be about fairness as the essential goal.

What? Government enforced child-support has nothing to do with biology. It is very much a determined attempt to balance out biological facts, i.e attempting to reach a goal of "fairness". Looking at stats for single parent households, it also quite clearly doesn't work best for the most amount of people.

But you're so in favor of the government taking over for paying for the inconvenient kids that the evil women sucker you into having. Well, they did. They just did so in a way that's inconvenient for you. Funny how demanding government "do something" bits you in the ass.

The thing is, I'm actually kinda fine with it. I'm OK with the idea of that we should ease up on parental support and increase the amount of government support that exists. I'm not sure if it's the BEST idea, but it's a valid idea.

The problem is that all too often people who espouse the things of the Lurker here are Conservative/Libertarian who don't want to pay for that sort of structure.

Well obvious point is obvious but the money has to come from somewhere. Not to mention that we will all pay one way or the other.

I do understand that some people do not want to pay to resolve a situation that they had no hand in creating in the first place. I think if we showed the indirect costs that might go somewhere.

But I live in a country where it seems that people are more open to that sort of thinking so I guess it is easy for me to say.