Lurker > Lirishae

This is the last time I'm replying to you, Kyuubi. As multiple people have pointed out, you frequently don't know what you're talking about. You also refuse to acknowledge facts that run contrary to your opinion, and you won't cite anything but your own personal opinion. I enjoy civil discussions with people who don't agree with me, but you've repeatedly shown yourself to be a poorly informed hypocrite. So I'm done here.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

How is stopping immigrants stopping police catching murderers and rapists? They don't interrupt eachother so neither needs to take precedence.

In case you've forgotten, this discussion started with a woman complaining at a local town meeting that the city should enforce federal immigration law. That's using finite resources that municipalities need to deal with criminals like rapists and murderers.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You claim it's reductive, I say it's comparative. You claim it's absurd, thus I claim it's absurd as the two are comparable.

Yet again, you've made it apparent you have absolutely no idea what reductio ad absurdum is.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I am quite happy to state they are illegal and that refusal to enforce the law makes law redundant, but you won't refute that.

Except I did just that by repeatedly citing prosecutorial discretion. It's the reason why DAs are spending their time prosecuting rape and child molestation instead of sodomy and adultery despite all four things being equally illegal.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

No, you're a raging feminist because of what you've said in prior topics. Regardless, refusing to deal with illegal immigration is not supported by the majority of Americans otherwise there would have been a vote to open all borders and it would have passed.

Because I post things that a majority of Americans agree with and back that up with statistics and articles? Lol. And FYI, the majority of Americans believe there should be a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants who committed no other crimes. There are many policies supported by a broad coalition of the American people, yet have not been taken up by Congress due to corruption and dysfunction.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/24/what-americans-want-to-do-about-illegal-immigration/

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You're arguing that the police should use their discretion to support your worldview. If you made that happen, it would be considered corruption.

No, I'm arguing that immigration law should be applied with discretion because many experts agree that mass deportations would be harmful to the US.You have shown zero evidence for your position that mass deportations are beneficial to society.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

And it is, that's why illegal immigrants are increasing, not dropping.

Note the prioritisation means they will get around to it and intend to prosecute, not that they won't do low priority prosecutions.

Illegal immigration is down, not up. What's increasing lately is the number of asylum seekers. And as the legal definition I linked to earlier states, the concept of prosecutorial discretion does allow for charges to be dropped entirely.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Again, not relevant

You stated it wasn't available OTC which is incorrect. Can you ever admit you're mistaken on anything?
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Individuals in the moment each know less than an information group that polled multiple witnesses and utilised expert analysts, yes.

You're assuming that the people who witnessed it didn't also see the coverage afterward.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

In the US, guns are used as compliance tools, really they should be glad it wasn't a massacre.

What kind of authoritarian are you that you think "she should be glad she wasn't shot" is a winning argument?
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

aDirtyShisno posted...

Youre choosing laws to completely ignore on a whim. Not laws to enforce to a lesser degree. If a law is not worth enforcing entirely then it should be removed from the books, but if you cant garner the support to remove that law from the books then ipso facto it has enough support to at least be enforced to some reasonable degree.

If you read what I wrote, I'm arguing for discretion in enforcement because I think it's better for society. I also gave my arguments for why I think this way, and cited sources to back that up. That is not "choosing laws to completely ignore on a whim." Prosecutorial discretion is very much a thing in the American legal system and for good reason. Instead of trying to deport every single illegal immigrant, discretion should be applied on who to prioritize for deportation.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

meth isn't OTC

It's a component in some OTC nasal sprays.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That isn't lawful stupid as the trope describes. He didn't say immigrants are the enemy because it's illegal. What I think he meant was that not enforcing the law means laws are pointless and subject to massive corruption.

Lawful stupid is about people who blindly adhere to laws because they're laws even when doing so makes no sense. You're acting as if you have to specifically use the word "enemy" in order to meet the definition of the trope, which the examples section will show is not necessary.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you think any other law should be higher priority, make the case for that position. There's no good reason this law should be less enforced beyond feels.

I thought it was self-evident that getting rapists and murderers off the street benefits society more than mass deporting illegal immigrants which most economists agree will hurt the economy, but I guess not.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Getting rid of illegal immigrants has obvious benefits. When you make an absurd claim, it's going to be challenged on your merits, and you've just admitted it's absurd.

So what are these "obvious benefits"? I pointed out your use of reductio ad absurdum. Your reading comprehension is severely lacking if you think that's "admitting it's absurd."

Kyuubi4269 posted...

1) I can't see that.
2) The f*** does a columnist know about economics.
3) It's an issue of illegal immigrants harming the lives of citizens, not of company bottom lines. In fact, businesses make more profit because they can exploit immigrants and abandon citizens.

1. You can't see that when I just cited an article with studies that back me up, while you cited absolutely nothing but your own personal opinion?
2. The columnist quotes economists who do know about economics. Do you really need this explained to you?
3. Except immigrants commit far less crime than the native-born. Even right-wing think tanks like the Center for Immigration Studies agree this is true. If you're worried about people who are causing harm to society, authorities should be targeting American citizens first.

https://www.businessinsider.com/immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-native-born-americans-trump-speech-2017-3/

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Don't talk on subjects you're ignorant of.

Funny, I'm still the one with sources who agree with me while you're presenting nothing but your personal opinion. You're the one who accused me of ignoring facts that go against my opinion, but look at what you're doing.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Edit: There's also the amusing part that since you're a raging feminist, you're also likely to be socialist-minded. Can you not see how the issue with immigration is the same as how when Trump claimed unemployment was down when it was from forcing people in to lesser working conditions. Profits may be up, but quality of life is down.

Funny how you think holding opinions shared by a majority of Americans makes me a "raging feminist" and that this also means I favor socialism. And no, I don't see how deporting people en masse has anything to do with people being underemployed.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Aaantlion posted...

...or that people generally object to any perceived mistreatment of attractive women.

Or maybe they objected to the fact that he declared his intention to tase her before he even started after her. Or that he tased an unarmed woman twice when he was on top of her and she clearly did not pose a threat to him. By his own admission, he used his taser as a compliance tool, not because he felt threatened.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/crime/article/ID-check-outside-Georgia-beach-bar-leads-to-14284023.php

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/tybee-island-mayor-police-chief-defend-use-force-viral-video-arrests/5lEwVTDCi3XYvVGzQBPnjM/

Aaantlion posted...

More importantly, most of the bystanders there wouldn't be particularly better informed than anybody here

You think people who witnessed it firsthand have more information than people who didn't? Okay.

Aaantlion posted...

Perhaps more importantly, there's the question of HOW many people were cursing the cops?

I think the more important question you should be asking is how many people who saw the confrontation sided with the officer? So far, we have two bystanders, a man and a woman, who intervened on her behalf against a police officer. We also have the person who filmed it and put it on social media. Yet you're finding excuses to dismiss this and demanded a higher burden of proof when there is zero mention of any bystander who saw the confrontation and stated the officer's use of force was warranted. She deserved to be arrested, but that does not mean she deserved to be tased. Tasers should only be used to disarm threats to the officer's safety.

Aaantlion posted...

And, as Stream noted, had this happened to a white guy rather than a white girl, the reaction would be far more subdued.

Except a quick search reveals that there are tons of news stories about videos going viral when a man is being improperly tasered, too.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

aDirtyShisno posted...

like I said above, voice your opinions to your lawmakers to change the laws or vote out the lawmakers you disagree with. If you cant do that then obviously there isnt enough support to your opinion and the laws should be enforced as they currently stand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you repeated this quote, I'm assuming you're trying to say that sodomy and adultery should continue to be prosecuted until the laws are changed. This is the kind of mentality that's jokingly referred to as "lawful stupid" -- not calling you stupid, it's just the name of the trope.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid

Prosecuting everything "because it's the law" means not being able to use discretion to prioritize the cases that are most important toward keeping society safe. If anyone thinks that deporting illegal immigrants should be a high priority, make the case for that position. Don't hide behind "it's the law," because being the law doesn't make it morally correct or mean that you can't apply discretion as to when it's enforced.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/

Kyuubi4269 posted...

May as well make drugs and murder legal too since you can't catch every junkie, dealer and assassin; clearly it's just a waste of resources.

This is a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure, but getting murderers off has obvious benefits.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It isn't, but I don't think you're one to accept facts that don't align with your beliefs.

Oh hai, I'm that person who frequently cites statistics and articles while you're here presenting your opinion as fact with nothing to back it up. Here, I've got an article for you to read with lots of citations explaining why mass deportations will hurt the economy. Somehow I doubt this will affect your opinion on the subject though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/14/what-donald-trumps-deportation-plans-would-do-to-american-businesses/
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

The_tall_midget posted...

Spare me. I am simply for the equality of sexes where one of the gender stops getting preferential treatment and is held accountable for its action. Your reactions and comments, every single time, shows that very fact.

Why do you think that polls show most people in first world countries disagree with you? You have a giant chip on your shoulder toward women that's clouding your perception of these issues. Seriously, I'm not trying to be snarky or insulting here when I say that you should really consider therapy. Are there any women in your life that you trust? Maybe you could talk it over with them and see what they think.

The_tall_midget posted...

She acted improperly, police restrained her, loser white knight tried to save her, he also got what he deserved.

So the woman who intervened was also white knighting?

The_tall_midget posted...

Stop trying to excuse the criminal actions of women; your biased are showing.

The fact that this is what you got from my post says a lot more about your biases than mine. Saying that an officer may have used excessive force is not excusing anything. Your reading comprehension seriously needs work.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

aDirtyShisno posted...

the laws should be enforced as they currently stand.

Right now, many states still have statutes banning sodomy and adultery. Do you want law enforcement to spend their finite time and resources rounding people up for consensual behavior "because it's the law"? Or do you recognize that this doesn't benefit society whatsoever, and prosecutors have discretion to focus on say, rapists and child molesters? Rounding up people who've committed immigration violations only is a waste of resources. It is physically and financially impossible to round up every single illegal immigrant in this country, and even if you could, it would be a colossal waste of time, money, and manpower.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

aDirtyShisno posted...

Considering there was also a man nearby who was trying to wrestle the girl free from his grasp I'd say the cop needed to subdue two threats to his safety.

Except he tazed the young woman he was on top of twice, and not the guy who would objectively be the greater threat. By his own admission, he employed the taser not because he felt threatened, but to force her to comply.

OhhhJa posted...

I'd bet money the bystanders had no clue what was happening except that they saw a pretty girl getting tazed. The same bystanders probably wouldve said nothing had it been some drunk frat dude

At least one of the bystanders who got involved was a woman.

The_tall_midget posted...

More believable than the usual "women are always victim" card that Lirishae loves to continuously play.

Except that's not even remotely anything I've ever said. In all seriousness, your life would be a lot happier if you went to a therapist and unpacked all these issues you have with women. You really don't realize how much hate and negativity drag you down until you start getting rid of it.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

The problem with the story is that the officer stated he used the taser, in hopes it would make her think about her actions and she would begin to comply. Tasers and stun guns are not compliance tools; they're meant to subdue threats to police officers' safety without resorting to lethal force. The fact that there were angry bystanders cursing the cops and trying to intervene shows that people who actually witnessed the conflict believed the officer used more force than was necessary in the situation.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Jennifer said, "you're in direct violation of the oath you took to the United States constitution"

The people who scream about the Constitution the most seem to be the people who understand it the least. There is absolutely nothing in that document that requires states and municipalities to use their finite time and resources to run immigration enforcement for the federal government. In fact, the Constitution actually gives the power to set immigration law to individual states via the 10th Amendment. Federal law in the late nineteenth century seized this power for the government in violation of the Constitution.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Brie Larson proclaimed the need for increased diversity among film critics, pointing to a USC Annenberg report that revealed: Only 22.2 percent of the 19,559 reviews evaluated were written by females, with 77.8 percent crafted by male critics. This represents a gender ratio of 3.5 males to every 1 female reviewer. White critics wrote 82 percent of the reviews and critics from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds authored 18 percent.

Larson said, I dont need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didnt work about A Wrinkle in Time. It wasnt made for him! I want to know what it meant to women of color, biracial women, to teen women of color.

Am I saying I hate white dudes? No, I am not, she continued. What I am saying is if you make a movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie, and review your movie.

Also:

"About a year ago, I started paying attention to what my press days looked like and the critics reviewing movies, and noticed it appeared to be overwhelmingly white male," Larson, 29, said.

"Moving forward, I decided to make sure my press days were more inclusive. After speaking with you, the film critic Valerie Complex and a few other women of colour, it sounded like across the board they weren't getting the same opportunities as others. When I talked to the facilities that weren't providing it, they all had different excuses.

"To them, a call for expanded access to opportunities for women and people of colour in a space traditionally dominated by white menis not only an insultit amounts to a threat to take away what they consider theirs."
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

darkknight109 posted...

The mental health system here is better than the US, but there's still lots of holes. We don't catch everyone and even the ones we do get to don't always get sufficient treatment. People still slip through the cracks, even with universal healthcare.

I never indicated I believed the system was perfect. But my relatives in the UK are constantly gobsmacked by all the services they take for granted compared to here in the USA. It does make a difference.

darkknight109 posted...

find the whole "mental health" red herring to be a bit insulting

What's insulting, in my opinion, is bad-faith attempts by Republicans to use mental illness to deflect. Even then, they have no solutions on the issue. That's not what I'm doing, and I mean no insult to the millions of innocent mental health patients in this country.

darkknight109 posted...

Mental health does occasionally show up in mass shootings

We're pretty well on the same page, then. I never indicated I believed mental health was the only factor, or that universal healthcare was THE solution. What I believe is that gun control alone will not solve the unique problem the US has with gun violence. Gun control is a worthy goal, but it only treats the symptoms. The root causes of gun violence include cultural factors, mental health factors, economic factors and more. We have to address these issues as well, and I believe universal healthcare is an overlooked part of that solution. That's the point I was trying to make.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Gaawa_chan posted...

Mental health care is incredibly difficult for most people in the USA to justify financially even with insurance. I had to stop seeing a therapist for my PTSD because even when I did have insurance, they would not cover the only therapist I had access to. Over a hundred dollars an hour.. she cut me off mid-processing a traumatic event and it screwed me up pretty badly for a while because it felt like I was stuck in what happened for days on end. I work minimum wage in Idaho and was supposed to see her once a week. Under a M4All system, that would never happen to anyone, because every medical establishment would be covered save for stuff like non-reconstructive plastic surgery.

That is truly awful. My heart really goes out to you :/ A family member of mine went through something pretty similar, so I know firsthand how things like this can wreck you. I'm so sorry you had to go through this.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

darkknight109 posted...

If it's primarily a mental health issue, why aren't the mentally unwell in other countries also committing mass killings at similar rates?

It's not just a mental health issue, but mental health is definitely part of it. In countries with universal health care, there's greater access to counseling and other mental health services. I think the lack of affordable care in the US plays a role in its unique problem with gun violence, though it's hardly the only factor.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Did you beat all three major arcs, or just one to get through the game?
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

darkknight109 posted...

You say that, but even within the US murder rates and gun laws make an almost perfectly negative correlation. The states with more restrictive gun laws see fewer homicides, while those with less gun restrictions are among the most dangerous states in the country.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, though. Those states tend to have higher average incomes and better access to healthcare, whereas states with less gun control also tend to be states that didn't take the Medicaid expansion and have lower average incomes, which limits people's ability to access mental health services. There are more issues at play in shootings than just mental illness, of course--there are cultural issues, political issues, even economic issues, to name a few. We need to look at the root causes of violence and treat those too, instead of just reacting to the symptoms.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Gaawa_chan posted...

Mass shootings would be more common in other countries if this was a mental health issue specifically.

Other countries have universal health care, unlike the US where mental health services are expensive, scarce, and not covered by many insurance providers. That makes a pretty huge difference.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

TheWorstPoster posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Really? Which part of his argument? All I saw was a link to a truck attack.

Lirishae posted...

If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't understand my argument at all, if you think this somehow "defeats" it.

wolfy42 posted...

B: If they don't leave, you can shoot at their legs etc and try and wound them, not kill them initially.

This idea that you can shoot to injure and not kill is a Hollywood myth. Even if you deliberately aim away from vital organs and try to hit a shoulder or leg, you have arteries all over them. Piercing an artery will cause you to bleed out in minutes without prompt medical attention.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

darkknight109 posted...

Don't you find it odd that the US, with all these "defensive tools" lying around, somehow has an absolutely sky-high murder rate that is more than double its developed-world peers?

I think it's important to note that another major difference between the US and our developed-world peers is universal healthcare and better access to mental health services. People who are depressed, unstable and violent are more likely to receive treatment in those countries, whereas mental health services are expensive, scarce, and often not covered here in the US. Passing gun control legislation and ignoring the underlying cultural and mental health issues is like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. If we don't solve these problems, we'll just be exchanging shootings for a different form of mass murder, most likely running down people with vehicles.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

CTLM posted...

Too bad they just don't become actual citizens and then the whole threat of deportation would go away.

Do you have any idea how difficult and expensive it is to become even a permanent legal resident in this country? It costs thousands of dollars in fees just to file the paperwork, and most people will need to hire a lawyer which costs thousands more.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Legend of Mana is an underrated gem. Nice graphics, great music, fun characters and story with choices, plus lots of gameplay elements. It has the most sophisticated equipment crafting system I've ever seen in a game, plus the ability to make your own spells, golems, raising pets, and more. The only bad thing I can say about it is that the difficulty got borked in the localization, so the vanilla difficulty of the NA version is painfully easy. But you can fix that later by setting the game to Nightmare or No Future mode.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

MarvelousCaptn posted...

The Cato Institute is a LIBERTARIAN think tank. On a right-left spectrum, it's viewed as being rightwing. However, on a political compass, it's another beast entirely.

Okay, it's a right-wing LIBERTARIAN think tank. Happy now?

MarvelousCaptn posted...

And you didn't include a link so I can't examine those claims, but it's likely that the "cost" is in lost taxes

I did post a link. It's talking about reducing corporate welfare in the budget. Seriously, your refusal to see facts is nothing short of stunning. Here it is again:

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget

MarvelousCaptn posted...

Foreign intervention is more than just military intervention, it also includes foreign aid and other nation-building efforts. And military intervention can stabilize regions rather than just disrupt them. Some of the US's larger disruptions have technically been less militarily-involved, including its role in supporting the Arab Spring which also greatly contributed to destabilizing the region.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

I want you to look at this VERY long list of countries. Do you see how many countries have been massively screwed up by US involvement? And do you see how many have stupid reasons, like enhancing the Fruit Company's profits? We should stay home and invest that money in the middle class.

MarvelousCaptn posted...

And you were specifically suggesting that the US has some reluctance to give money to the poor

Second try, and still wrong.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

MarvelousCaptn posted...

You claim that, but your links specifically reference bailouts and tax breaks.

Yes, those links mention bailouts and tax breaks. They also mention substantial subsidies, which you are choosing to ignore.

MarvelousCaptn posted...

Plus "wasn't really" (or "isn't really") isn't the same thing as a flat-out "isn't", which is an important distinction because most references to corporate welfare ARE about tax breaks and that other things -- like subsidies -- are more for groups like farmers

You're trying to defend your statement by nitpicking my paraphrasing of it, instead of what you actually said? Here's what you said: "Corporate welfare" usually isn't even a thing. Other than bailouts, literally all it is most of the time is just a tax break." That's simply not true, and it's long past time you acknowledged that.

MarvelousCaptn posted...

You said it doesn't pay taxes, not that it doesn't pay federal taxes. This was specifically addressed in my link that he didn't bother to read.

Your own link says that Amazon paid little or no taxes for years. Additionally, it says that the WSJ reported it's not clear whether Amazon paid any taxes or not in 2018. However, it also quotes the WSJ as reporting that Amazon has effectively paid a 13% tax rate. So at best they massively underpaid, while it's still true they didn't pay anything for years.

MarvelousCaptn posted...

So you agree that it's not an investment contrary to your prior claims?

Why would you think those statements are mutually exclusive? We can't compete in the 21st century while many of our workforce are struggling to have their basic needs met. It's hard to go to college, start new businesses, or work at high-skill jobs when you're struggling with easily treatable health conditions.

MarvelousCaptn posted...

And contrary to your claim, a lot of government welfare programs *are* permanent. There's no term limit to Section-8, there's functionally no limit on SNAP benefits (assuming certain criteria are met), etc.

...Except I explicitly noted that some people do stay on there permanently. They are the minority, according to the government itself.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html

MarvelousCaptn posted...

Well, it was in response to a not-nice personal attack.

No, I asked you what part of something you didn't understand so that I could clarify. It was not intended as a personal attack. I posted that statistic days ago, not weeks ago.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

MarvelousCaptn posted...

>Claims that what I said is false
>Literally links to a discussion of a bailout which I specifically cited in my post

...You alleged that corporate welfare wasn't really a thing, just bailouts and tax breaks. The links I provided showed that there is more to corporate welfare than bailouts and tax breaks. It also discusses bailouts as part of that subject. That it in no way proves you correct. If you can't argue honestly, please don't bother replying.

MarvelousCaptn posted...

Obama and GWB made a pragmatic decision which, while violating the spirit of the free market, certainly paid off in the case of the auto industry.

"As long as the money goes to corporations, it's okay."

MarvelousCaptn posted...

Amazon pays taxes. You're parroting a flat-out lie.

A lot of sites, including Fox News, reported this. Even Trump acknowledged it in one of his tweets.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/amazon-earned-5-6b-in-2017-but-paid-no-federal-taxes

MarvelousCaptn posted...

Paying people money not to work doesn't make America better prepared to compete in any century. Individual welfare subsidies aren't an investment and it seems like the kind of thing I shouldn't have to explain.

Except that's not what welfare is. It's assistance for people in bad circumstances. Most who accept government help don't stay on it forever. Those that do generally have reasons that make it difficult to find work, whether it's obvious ones like heart problems or less obvious ones like undiagnosed autism.

MarvelousCaptn posted...

What part of anything do you understand? You introduce a statistic -- one that I previously haven't discussed -- and pretend that I objected to it while simultaneously not looking at what that 13% translates to in revenue. But if we're talking numbers, 9% of the overall federal taxes are paid by corporations. (And it should be noted that employers contribute half of that social security payroll tax as well.)

Nice personal attack there. I've replied to you with this statistic before. So you think paying 9% of all federal taxes makes it okay that they're only paying a tax rate of 13%? Do I understand you correctly?

MarvelousCaptn posted...

Again, other than bailouts, "corporate welfare" isn't really a thing.

The Cato Institute, a right-wing think tank founded by the Koch brothers, says corporate welfare is a thing that costs taxpayers nearly a hundred billion dollars a year. Why do you persist in saying otherwise?

MarvelousCaptn posted...

While I don't always approve of foreign intervention, it can have long-term benefits for the US especially since it can stem illegal immigration. And as for the "military industrial complex," military spending pales in comparison to our social welfare programs. Discretionary spending in general (of which military spending iirc is the largest item) only makes up something like a third of the total budget. You suggest that we don't give money to the poor, but we do massive amounts of that.

Foreign intervention plays a large role in displacing people and creating the need for illegal immigration and asylum. We spend more on the military than any other country, and there is a great deal of waste. The Pentagon failed its first ever audit so badly that they won't even release the figures. And I never suggested we don't give money to the poor. That's a pretty pathetic strawman there.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

LinkPizza posted...

It could have also been avoided if the women took birth control... And sometimes, the cost of raising them is paid by the fathers money when hes giving them Child support... if they even use it on the child. Also, sometimes, the only reason the father cant do anything with the child is because of he mother... But like i said before, I think there should be something that allows men to break all contact completely. No child support, but also no contact with the child ever...

This is a situation in which the woman wants the child but the father doesn't. Expecting the woman to bear the burden of not getting pregnant in order to avoid inconveniencing the man is ridiculous. And that "if they even use it on the child" of yours is very telling about your mindset toward women. It is incredibly expensive to raise a child. Unless the father is rich or the mother is neglectful, there's no way that money isn't getting spent on the child. Please tell me, what do you think will happen to hundreds of thousands of children if their fathers all walk away and refuse to see them or support them?
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

nfmsz posted...

You're being dishonest here. You are intentionally misrepresenting reality to suit a narrative. Women are not and never have been the exclusive caretaker in a child's life and they never will be. You are doing exactly what I said was disingenuous in the first place: minimizing women to the status of children when it suits your narrative.

How on earth is what I said minimizing women to the status of children? It's a simple fact that women perform most of the childcare in this country. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being disingenuous.

nfmsz posted...

Yet again, this is a double standard. You are placing all of the responsibility solely on one participant. It's dishonest. Take responsibility for YOURSELF.

The fact that you bristle at a suggestion that men wear condoms if they don't want to be fathers, and instead expect women to bear of the burden of not getting pregnant because it will inconvenience the man, is ridiculous. 60% of childbearing women use birth control compared to just 19% of men who reliably use condoms. This is in spite of the fact that birth control for women is more expensive, more difficult to access, and has side effects that can be brutal, even life-threatening.

nfmsz posted...

Where are the high profile, high visibility articles about one individual man who committed suicide after being ravaged by a one-sided divorce? Oh, they don't really exist?

Equating suicide with homicide is still just as ridiculous, and you're still just as wrong.

https://nypost.com/2017/02/12/surgeon-jumps-from-bridge-after-divorce-from-tv-personality-wife/

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/07/10/divorced_dad_leaves_clues_to_his_desperation/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2667880/Models-husband-commits-suicide-just-weeks-photographed-getting-cozy-Leonardo-DiCaprio.html

https://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2017/09/man-commits-suicide-at-law-firm-representing-ex-wife.html

nfmsz posted...

You basically just said "I don't care if people commit suicide because they've had their entire lives stolen from them forcibly by a court" while simultaneously trying to play morality police.

Not what I said at all. What if I accused you of not caring about women killed by their romantic partners because you've spent a whole topic about that issue instead making a big stink about how unfair it is that men have to pay child support? I'm not saying that, mind you, just trying to show you that making assumptions doesn't work.

nfmsz posted...

You keep the child, buuuut, he doesn't have to raise it.

No one is asking him to raise the child if he doesn't want to, but society does expect him to contribute something. Judges prioritize the welfare of the child over the welfare of the parents.

nfmsz posted...

You act like female birth control doesn't exist.

We're talking a situation in which the male does not want the child, but the female does. Female birth control isn't relevant to the discussion.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

MarvelousCaptn posted...

Subsidies are usually given out to farmers, etc. I'd hardly call them corporations. And again, usually the "subsidies" are more along the lines of a tax break. Compare that to people who pay no taxes and get free money.

For the third time, local, state, and federal governments are giving out hundreds of billions of dollars to corporations like Microsoft and Amazon. This is reality. Why are you gung ho about giving money to entities that don't need it and demonizing giving money to people who DO need it?

"A Times investigation has examined and tallied thousands of local incentives granted nationwide and has found that states, counties and cities are giving up more than $80 billion each year to companies. The beneficiaries come from virtually every corner of the corporate world, encompassing oil and coal conglomerates, technology and entertainment companies, banks and big-box retail chains.

The cost of the awards is certainly far higher. A full accounting, The Times discovered, is not possible because the incentives are granted by thousands of government agencies and officials, and many do not know the value of all their awards. Nor do they know if the money was worth it because they rarely track how many jobs are created. Even where officials do track incentives, they acknowledge that it is impossible to know whether the jobs would have been created without the aid."

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html

"Rising federal spending and huge deficits are pushing the nation toward a financial and economic crisis. Policymakers should find and eliminate wasteful, damaging, and unneeded programs in the federal budget. One good way to save money would be to cut subsidies to businesses. Corporate welfare in the federal budget costs taxpayers almost $100 billion a year."

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget

MarvelousCaptn posted...

Giving free money to the poor isn't investing in the middle class. And the best way to invest in the middle class would be to encourage the growth of good-paying jobs which, ironically enough, would involve tax breaks or outright giving money to new businesses (instead of helping your barista get their third masters degree)

1. How is that not an investment?

2. You mean the same tax breaks that raised the deficit and were mostly used to buy back stocks?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/business/tax-cuts-share-buybacks-corporate.html

3. How are people supposed to get these good paying jobs if they can't afford to go to college or the doctor?

MarvelousCaptn posted...

Amazon pays taxes.

https://fortune.com/2019/02/14/amazon-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes-2019/

MarvelousCaptn posted...

....first, isn't the kind of s*** you're supporting? Second, if you don't like that happening, then why aren't you protesting those welfare programs?

The government should help people that need it, yes. And companies should pay their taxes and pay their workers instead of effectively using taxpayer dollars for that purpose. I'm asking you, Mr. Welfare is Bad, why it's okay for corporations to be a drain on tax payer money when it's a cardinal sin for everyone else in America.

MarvelousCaptn posted...

It's entirely misleading and purposefully deceptive.

None of that changes anything Ilhan said.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

nfmsz posted...

See the problem with this argument (aside from the fact that it's a double standard and thus disingenuous) is that you're basically minimizing women to the status of children, incapable of making their own decisions. She also chose to have sex. It's extremely dishonest and I'm going to call you on it whether you meant to be dishonest or not.

What's dishonest here is pretending that men and women's say should be equal when the responsibility and consequences are inherently unequal. Because women actually carry the pregnancy, they assume all of the health risks and the lion's share of childcare. This is why they get the final say in whether or not to abort. The alternative is allowing men with no legal relationship to a woman to make medical decisions on her behalf. If you don't see why that's wrong, there's probably nothing I can say that will help you understand.

nfmsz posted...

If she had chosen to abort and he wanted to keep it, he'd have no say. If she wanted to keep it, and he didn't, he'd have no say. He'd also get the pleasure of giving this woman money every month she probably isn't even spending on his child. Courts absolutely favor women in custody disputes and this dude was going to be paying out the ass for the next 18 years, and those payments were going to be extortion levels of exorbitant. Think 60-70% of his pay checks with zero regard for his comfort or personal safety. Basically these arguments always free the woman of responsibility (and the consequences!) and shove it all on the male when it is convenient as if it doesn't take two to tango.

All of which the man could have avoided if he'd used a condom. Your idea of equality is apparently men being able to father children and abandon them. Single women are already holding up their end of the bargain; they take care of the child and pay most of the costs for raising them (which are enormous btw; I sincerely doubt the woman in your example will have any money left over). Heaven forbid that men be expected to contribute something toward the upbringing of their children.

nfmsz posted...

It's neat how this woman gets killed and it's national news but there are no stories about the countless men who commit suicide because their petty vindictive ex took it all.

Drawing equivalency between homicide and suicide is ridiculous. You do realize there's a biiiig difference between killing yourself and killing someone else, right? Either way, you're still wrong. A quick search turns up dozens of stories on men committing suicide after divorce.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

MarvelousCaptn posted...

"Corporate welfare" usually isn't even a thing. Other than bailouts, literally all it is most of the time is just a tax break.

Are you still spouting this lie? Corporations get hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and that's on top of tax breaks. According to the GAO, corporations effectively pay 13% due to all the breaks they get.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget

https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654957.pdf

MarvelousCaptn posted...

The US auto industry sure did, otherwise it could have gone under and taken countless jobs with it which would have created a lot of new poor people.

So, Mr. "Capitalism is good and socialism is bad" thinks the government should bail out businesses that are too big to fail? You do realize that Adam Smith wrote that the government's role in the free market was to create a level playing field, and free market economics didn't work if certain people got special treatment?

MarvelousCaptn posted...

Overlooking that "fair share" is ridiculous propaganda,

So you think Amazon paying nothing in taxes isn't ridiculous?

MarvelousCaptn posted...

somebody paying less into the system isn't as bad as people TAKING OUT FROM the system.

You mean like the hundreds of billions in corporate welfare that makes the rich richer, right? Or are you suggesting we just hoard all the money and not invest in making our country better prepared to compete in the 21st century?

MarvelousCaptn posted...

If those companies left the country tomorrow, the US would lose a lot of tax revenue.

What part of "they're only paying a 13% rate" do you not understand?

MarvelousCaptn posted...

If welfare recipients found a better deal in Canada or Sweden and left for one of those nations

People in those countries DO get a better deal. But poor people usually don't have the means to move.

MarvelousCaptn posted...

then the US wouldn't be spending as much.

The US wouldn't be spending as much if we stopped needless corporate welfare, foreign intervention, and feeding the military industrial complex. But somehow it's okay to give away money to rich people and not poor people.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

ArvTheGreat posted...

people just throw words around that are automatically true. don't agree with someone? they are mysoginists, racists zenithphobes and whatever phobe you can think of

The word you're looking for is xenophobe. And look, I will go out on a limb and agree with you that this has happened. But the people who make these complaints tend to be the same people who couldn't identify racism or misogyny if it was dancing naked with a flashing neon sign, like right now. You aren't helping your case by bringing it up when we're discussing real, undeniable racism.

ArvTheGreat posted...

thats not what racists say.

Yes, it is what racists say. Refusing to acknowledge racism as anything besides lynchings or the n word is enabling racists. It's like the guy who tells his daughter, "I'm not a racist, I just don't want you dating black people."
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

The_tall_midget posted...

Of course, it works for groups who tend to vote for people who love to be promised free s***. Duh. What groups do you believe I am referencing?

You do realize Republicans promise lots of "free s***" too, right? The only difference is, they call it a "subsidy" and it's given out to corporations instead. God forbid we try to invest in a healthy, educated middle class in order to better compete with the rest of the world in the 21st century. Nope, we should maintain the status quo, where companies like Amazon pay nothing in taxes and the government is essentially subsidizing its workers in the form of food stamps and other welfare. Obviously taxpayer money is better spent making Jeff Bezos a little bit richer than creating opportunities for the rest of America.

The_tall_midget posted...

I see, so there is "explanations" and "context" when Omar is an open anti-semite, sexist, and racist, but when a republican is whatever you people call them on, there is no context: there is only the victim card and muh feelings. Nope, not accepting your double standards or her excuses. She's a racist, sexist, and anti-semite, end of story.

The one with double standards here is you. When it's your guy, you'll go to any length to deny or deflect obvious racism or sexism. When it's the other guy, you just seize on it as a way to attack them. The idea that you actually care about these issues is laughable; you've just admitted here that you see racism and sexism only as political weapons. It was conservatives who put forth the idea that it's justifiable to fear Muslims because they commit violence. Ilhan Omar responded by stating that our country should be more fearful of white men (than Muslims), because white men have caused more deaths in this country than Muslims have. That statistic is entirely correct. There was nothing racist about it. There's plenty racist about Trump telling four Congresswomen of color to go back to their countries however. White people never get told to go back to their countries. It's something racists say to non-whites to shut them up and drive them out. No "explanation" or "context" will change the crux of what he said.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

tmac666 posted...

I still don't see how that was racist. He said go back to where you came from, fix their country and then COME BACK and show us how its done. I am yet to see a single explanation on how it is racist.

White people rarely if ever get told to "go back to their countries." It's something racists frequently say to non-whites to shut them up and drive them out. When you tell someone "go back to your country," you're making a statement that that person's country *isn't* America. You're telling them they don't belong here by virtue of their skin color, even if they were born here or became naturalized citizens. That's racism.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Taily_Po posted...

And you can't think of *any* reasons besides race why he might have thought that? Like, idk, maybe the fact that Norway is a first-world country with a crime rate that's low even among developed nations?

If that was the reasoning, he would have picked a nation from the top ten for least crime, which Norway doesn't make. But I'm guessing Trump doesn't want immigrants from places like Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, or Bahrain.

Taily_Po posted...

No, Trump was not "found guilty" of discrimination.

The only reason they weren't found guilty was because they settled and signed a consent decree. The evidence against them was highly damning.

ELYSE GOLDWEBER: I went to a place called Operation Open City. What they had done was send testersmeaning one white couple and one couple of colorto Trump Village, a very large, lower-middle-class housing project in Brooklyn. And of course the white people were treated great, and for the people of color there were no apartments. We subpoenaed all their documents. Thats how we found that a persons application, if you were a person of color, had a big C on it.

The Department of Justice brings the case and we name Fred Trump, the father, and Donald Trump, the son, and Donald hires Roy Cohn, of Army-McCarthy fame. [Cohn, a Trump mentor, had served as Senator Joe McCarthys chief counsel during his investigations of alleged Communists in the government and was accused of pressuring the Army to give preferential treatment to a personal friend.] Cohn turns around and sues us for $100 million. This was my first appearance as a lawyer in court. Cohn spoke for two hours, then the judge ruled from the bench that you cant sue the government for prosecuting you. The next week we took the depositions. My boss took Freds, and I got to take Donalds. He was exactly the way he is today. He said to me at one point during a coffee break, You know, you dont want to live with them either.

Everyone in the world has looked for that deposition. We cannot find it. Trump always acted like he was irritated to be there. He denied everything, and we went on with our case. We had the records with the C, and we had the testers, and you could see that everything was lily-white over there. Ultimately they settledthey signed a consent decree. They had to post all their apartments with the Urban League, advertise in the Amsterdam News, many other things. It was pretty strong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comments/588067/

Taily_Po posted...

The fact that you purposefully don't list that to imply that he meant something about the Mexican people rather than illegal immigrants implies a lot about your motivations.

"He's only calling all the illegal immigrants criminals and rapists!" isn't the stellar defense you seem to think it is.

Taily_Po posted...

At least three of whom have highlighted their ties to these other places. AOC in particular is a vocal supporter of Puerto Rico. More importantly, I can't recall him singling these four individuals out--- instead I *believe* it was inferred by pundits and politicians.

Nope, Trump himself confirmed in a tweet he meant those four. Pretending that a tweet about "progressive Democrat congresswomen" doesn't include four of the most high profile progressive Democrat congresswomen is just lol.

Taily_Po posted...

All of which are also misleading or outright false, and come from a larger list of anti-Trump propaganda.

Your response to everything you don't want to believe. What exactly would convince you that Trump is racist?
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Kyuubi4269: When I searched for bias against men, most articles I found stated that custody decisions were made amicably between the mother and father. The court was asked to settle only 4%. Out of that 4%, only 1.5% actually wound up being settled by the court. That is an awfully tiny number to be arguing about. Out of those that alleged bias, most were anecdotal or stated the bias was toward other things, like being in favor of the cooperative parent, or biased toward traditional gender roles (women are nurturers, men are breadwinners). If you have meaningful sources to back up your claims, please do.

LinkPizza: Please provide a source for your claim.

streamofthesky posted...

"How is it fair that a woman can participate in bringing a child into the world, and be let off with zero consequences? Don't you think that will just encourage more women to be irresponsible, when all they have to do is get an abortion?"

Apples and oranges, but if you read my previous post, the majority of women are doing their part to prevent pregnancy by using birth control. Men are not. In many cases, getting an abortion is time consuming and expensive. Very few women opt to use it as glorified birth control.

streamofthesky posted...

You sound just like all the asinine arguments against women being able to have legal abortions right now. Right down to wanting to use another human's existence as a form of punishment (excuse me, "consequence") for perceived promiscuous behavior.

I'm not talking about punishing anyone. I'm talking about who should be obligated to care for a child that's been born, ethically speaking. I believe both parents have this obligation, and that it's disingenuous to argue that men should be allowed to flout this responsibility.

streamofthesky posted...

And this is just...wow....
There are female contraceptives, too. And if a condom isn't used, it could be that *both* figure the pill is enough and/or would rather not use one. It doesn't just feel better for the guy w/o one...
And yeah, Plan B and abortions both exist for when the other methods fail. But it's all the guy's fault.

You clearly didn't even read what I wrote. I wrote about both male and female contraceptive use, and documented how the majority of women use it while men very often don't.

streamofthesky posted...

If a woman cares so much about this, she can insist on the condom use and even keep some on her own person, their sale isn't restricted to men. It's just as inexpensive for them to buy, is it not?

There's no point in buying them if men won't wear them.

streamofthesky posted...

Why am I even seriously debating w/ someone trying to sell a vasectomy as no big deal for a guy to undergo, though?

I was trying to point out that it's wrong to make reproductive decisions for other people. This apparently went over your head, much like everything else I wrote.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Your interpretation came from thinking poorly of him, and if you had an unbiased view of him, you would have assumed he was responding to the most recent thing, and he was.

Don't try to flip this, you done wrong.

I'm sorry, but you're being a total hypocrite. If you had an unbiased view of me, you wouldn't be assuming the worst of me. I never said a word impugning his character at any point. And I love how you're singling me out while not saying a single word to the other person who came to the exact same conclusion. You've spent multiple posts castigating me, and only me, for an honest misunderstanding of a vaguely worded post. By your very own standards, you're the one that's done wrong here.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Following English common law, there's the lovely prerequisite that it's not rape if the "rapist" reasonably believed consent was given. If she says yes to sex and acts without any threat being used (which he knows he's not doing), he reasonably believed it was consensual so you can't charge.

If you do not want sex then you say you do not want sex; to agree to something you don't want is insane and puts the blame squarely on you.

Yeah, I'm sure you'd say the same thing about giving up your wallet to a swarthy guy accosting you in a back alley. Blaming the woman for being afraid to say no when it's the man who purposely created that situation is ridiculous. In the scenario being discussed, the man isn't some dude who innocently believes everything was on the up and up. He knows exactly what he's doing: using alcohol (the number one date rape drug) and the implied threat of physical harm to coerce a woman to have sex with him. And you're blaming her for misunderstanding, not the man who by his own admission deliberately created the misunderstanding. English common law is not state law, either. Laws vary from state to state, but many have laws about implied threats, coerced consent, and alcohol rendering someone unable to give consent. It is beyond me why you're defending this.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is thats not always true. The system leans heavily in favor of women.

In the overwhelming vast majority of cases, both the mother and father agree that the mother should have primary custody. In those few cases that are contested (less than ten percent), judges tend to keep children with their primary caregiver, which is their mother in the vast majority of cases. This does not equate to being biased in favor of women.

"In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court?

What do these statistics tell us?

1. Fathers are less involved in their children's care during the marriage.

2. Fathers are less involved in their children's lives after divorce.

3. Mothers gain custody because the vast majority of fathers choose to give them custody.

4. There is no Family Court bias in favor of mothers because very few fathers seek custody during divorce."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

CTLM posted...

Puritan beliefs and biblical values. Even though it's separate from our government, we're still using it in judgment

We actually inherited monogamy from the Roman Empire. The Bible verses people point to in order to justify one man, one woman marriage don't actually mean that because the Jews were polygamists. Another Bible verse speaks of having only one wife as a requirement to be a church leader, which wouldn't make sense if monogamy was the default teaching of the church.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Lirishae posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I think the woman should be able to do it, too. But most women who dont want one will have the abortion. Though, now that some places are trying to make it illegal, there will probably be more women who want to cut ties, as well. And I think either parent should be able to do it.

Giving up your parental rights is already a thing. But rights are separate from financial obligations, which aren't usually terminated unless the child is being adopted.

The UK isn't the same as everywhere.

Also our system is pretty fucked up. Men can choose to have no rights to their children (or not be told they can have them) but be forced to be obligated to them regardless. If you're going to force somebody to be obligated, you should give them the rights expected from that obligation.

That's how it is in the US. Judges generally rule based on what's in the best interest of the child, not the convenience of the parents. It's rare for them to decide that stopping child support payments are in a child's best interest. At the same time, the judge can also decide it's best for the child not to see the non-custodial parent.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

LinkPizza posted...

I think the woman should be able to do it, too. But most women who dont want one will have the abortion. Though, now that some places are trying to make it illegal, there will probably be more women who want to cut ties, as well. And I think either parent should be able to do it.

Giving up your parental rights is already a thing. But rights are separate from financial obligations, which aren't usually terminated unless the child is being adopted.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

LinkPizza posted...

Or just cut all ties. I believe that should be an acceptable condition. No child support, but also cant see, talk to, or have any authority over the child...

How is it fair that a man can participate in bringing a child into the world, and be let off with zero consequences? Don't you think that will just encourage more men to be irresponsible, when all they have to do is sign away their parental rights?

The_tall_midget posted...

Yes, but that would make it so that the man has actual rights and choices, and as Lirishae is skillfully refusing to admit, we can't have that! Because, as we know, it's a woman's body and her choice... until comes the time to hold someone accountable, then apparently only men have access to anti-contraceptives or are responsible for conception.

It's absolutely laughable that you think "actual rights" for men is being able to make medical decisions for women. Also, I'm guessing you missed the part where I mentioned equal responsibility. The woman is already doing her part by caring for the child and paying the lion's share of the cost. You and others are balking at the idea that men should have to pay a fraction of that even though biologically speaking, they are the doers here. A woman can have all the sex that she wants, but won't get pregnant unless a man chooses to forego a condom and ejaculate inside her. Yes, a woman does have a responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and many are doing just that. 60% of child-bearing age women use birth control, but only 15-19% of men use condoms reliably. The pill has a higher failure rate than using a condom, which is 98% effective when used correctly (slightly less when used incorrectly). Also, around half of the women who get abortions report using contraceptives in the month they got pregnant.

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/third-u-s-men-use-condoms-not-every-time-n791426

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2018/about-half-us-abortion-patients-report-using-contraception-month-they-became

Not only are women doing the majority of the work to prevent pregnancies, it's much harder for women than it is for men. Birth control for women requires a doctor's prescription, isn't always affordable, and the side effects can be brutal, even life-threatening. Surgical solutions are invasive and irreversible. Birth control for men is a condom that can easily and cheaply be bought 24/7, while vasectomies are simple procedures that can usually but not always be reversed. There's also the fact that men can get dozens, even hundreds of women pregnant in the span of time it takes a woman to have one baby. Clearly, men are the ones not holding up their fair share of the responsibility here. But somehow I suspect you will continue to blame women anyway.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

The_tall_midget posted...

"Men are only going to be hold accountable for conception if it means they have to pay for it. Otherwise, they have no say."

Woman wants to abort: IT'S HER BODY, HER CHOICE!!111!1 THE MAN HAS NO SAY IN THIS!
Woman wants to keep the child or demand child support: SHE'S A VICTIM! THE MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THAT LIFE!

How impressively sexist and biased of you.

Oh, good lord. Your post doesn't even make sense. The man can say whatever he wants. He just can't make medical decisions for a woman and legally compel her to donate her uterus against her will. The woman is not a victim assuming the sex was consensual, but the man is still equally responsible for creating that life. The woman is doing her part by caring for the child and paying the lion's share of costs. If the man does not wish to be held responsible for having children, he should get a vasectomy, wear a condom, or hell, even just pull out. If you do it right, it's actually pretty effective.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

The biggest issue with LoD was the translation, IMO. It's a shame PS1 era Sony was so bad in this regard.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Taily_Po posted...

Just like it's selfish for that kid to want to be alive, right? >_> At any rate, if a man can't compel a woman to have an abort his child then he's being deprived of his reproductive rights. And it's somewhat telling that the arguments against men in this arena are IDENTICAL to most of the ones used to forbid women from having abortions. But hey, if you don't want a man to have a say then don't obligate him to pay for the child if he doesn't want it.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. You cannot be compelled to donate your blood, your kidney, or anything else to save a life. Even if this refusal directly causes a person's death, it is not murder. So why do you believe that women can be compelled to donate their uterus against their will? Why do you believe that a man with no legal authority over a woman's medical decisions (or even any legal relationship to her) should able to force her to literally risk her health and her life? That's not an exaggeration, btw--the US has the worst maternal mortality statistics of the developed world. There is no equivalency between a woman making medical decisions about her own body and a man trying to control that woman's medical decisions. Or would you be fine with a law mandating vasectomies? A man's reproductive rights are over his body alone, no one else's. And Mr. "welfare is pure loss," you want taxpayers to be on the hook for even MORE irresponsible men? Seriously? For crying out loud, even the Code of Hammurabi had provisions for child support.

The_tall_midget posted...

This. Women want their cake and they want to eat it too. Laws are too biased toward women. Let's see the strength and independence from women that they claim to have.

Yeah, God forbid that men take responsibility for their decision to ejaculate inside a woman with no condom. Asking them to pay a small fraction of the childcare cost is just selfish and ridiculous.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Monopoman posted...

Meh if you report just the facts it's tough to be biased I felt old school network news was good at that.

Bias isn't limited to just how things are reported. It's also about things like deciding what to cover and how prominent the coverage is, or which experts/guests get quoted or called in. Chaos is correct that no one can avoid being biased. It's better for us to recognize that about ourselves than pretend that we can somehow rise above basic human nature.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You chose the more malicious answer over the more linguistically sensible one because you look on him poorly, that makes you look terrible.

Oh, for crying out loud. I never said anything remotely like that, and I didn't "choose" anything. I said I thought one interpretation was more likely based on previous statements by the same poster. You're trying to call me out for taking someone's words the wrong way because you think I have a poor opinion of them, but guess what you're doing right now?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

In one situation you distinctly do what they do not want against their wishes. Pretty open and shut case, no argument.

In the other you do nothing wrong,

Oh, good lord. The second scenario is about making a woman agree to have sex because she's afraid for her safety if she doesn't. That's plenty wrong. Even Know Your Meme acknowledges this point. The first scenario, while thoroughly reprehensible, legally does not constitute rape in the majority of the US. The second one, also thoroughly reprehensible, can very well be charged as a crime depending on what and where it happened. States have differing laws about coerced consent and how alcohol affects the ability to give consent.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Broken_Zeus posted...

....it's rare to see somebody who misunderstands how things work this badly. First off, the basics -- that national debt (as near as I can tell) is $22.023 trillion as of the end of June.

I think you have that honor, sir. You say that, and in the next breath you can't even get the debt right. It's $22.5 trillion. You can see for yourself at https://usdebtclock.org/

Broken_Zeus posted...

The national debt is $2 trillion higher than when Trump took office in 2017 (and it's worth noting that Obama added $9 trillion to the national debt during his term, partially off measures he coordinated with GWB).

$8.5 trillion, actually. Trump spent nearly as much in his first two years as Obama did while fighting a recession. Later figures have him outspending Obama.

"In raw terms, Trump added the second-most debt of any recent president. According to the Treasury data, the US added $2.07 trillion $2,065,536,336,472.90 to be exact in new debt between Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017, and February 11, when the country pushed past $22 trillion.... Based on the CBO's projections, Trump will have accumulated $3.73 trillion in new debt by the end of the 2020 fiscal year, which, because of federal budget rules, actually runs until the end of September 2020. And by the end of fiscal 2024, the last year of Trump's second term if he wins reelection, the total debt added is projected to come in at $8.78 trillion." (That's more than Obama spent, btw.)

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-national-debt-deficit-compared-to-obama-bush-clinton-2019-2/

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Broken_Zeus posted...

"Corporate welfare" (other than bailouts) is a vast exaggeration since, 90% of the time, it just refers to tax breaks where the government is still taking in money rather than paying it out.

No, it's not. Local, state, and federal governments give away hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to big corporations. That's on top of the tax breaks. According to the GAO, we effectively have a 13% corporate tax rate because of all the tax breaks they get.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget

https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654957.pdf

Broken_Zeus posted...

(as opposed to social welfare, which is pure loss).

What, you think they hide it under a mattress or something? Welfare generally gets spent immediately. Spending boosts the economy. You can't be serious here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-economic-case-for-food-stamps/260015/
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Bugmeat posted...

Lirishae posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Based on what he said, it looks like hes agreeing with you. I think hes saying he doesnt have a problem with it being called rape, as appear to not seeing a problem with stealthing... At least, thats how I read it...

Considering that Bugmeat previously posted that the scenario in the first post isn't rape, I doubt that's what was intended.

You and green mist seem to have a very hard time with reading comprehension. I'm sitting here completely baffled at how such a simple and straight forward post like "if true, I don't see a problem with this" could be misunderstood at all, let alone by two people. He says "I think I this is what happens in Sweden" I say "I don't have a problem with that". How the hell did both of you misunderstand that?

And taking the condom off without permission is entirely different than the scenario from It's Always Sunny. Pull your head out of your ass. The lack of oxygen is clearly having an effect on your cognitive abilities.

All I said was that I doubted that's what you meant. The fact that you feel the need to attack people for a simple misunderstanding you created reflects more on you than us. "If true, I don't see a problem with this" could have been referring to either the act or the law. Based on your previous statements, I figured you meant the act. It frankly baffles me that you agree removing a condom is rape (horrible, but legal in many places), yet feel that it's not rape to create a situation where a girl feels she has no choice but to agree to sex (something that could very well lead to charges, especially with alcohol involved).
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

LinkPizza posted...

Based on what he said, it looks like hes agreeing with you. I think hes saying he doesnt have a problem with it being called rape, as appear to not seeing a problem with stealthing... At least, thats how I read it...

Considering that Bugmeat previously posted that the scenario in the first post isn't rape, I doubt that's what was intended.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155

Republicans pretending to care about saving money is just lol. They've passed a $4 trillion dollar budget and ballooned the debt to $22.5 trillion dollars. $2.5 billion dollars isn't even a drop in the bucket, it's a subatomic particle in the bucket. They're perfectly happy to pay for wars, corporate welfare, bailouts for Trump's base, and tax cuts for the rich, but the second you start talking about spending money on the poor & working class, they start crying about how we can't afford it.
---

"Little scratches on people's hearts will be gone if they pat them from behind, but the humans don't know that." -Li'l Cactus
3DS FC: 0619-3174-3155