Wrong. It amazes me that you call and imply that I'm the moron here.
Sex isn't mainly used for reproduction in today's world, it's for pleasure. Most people that have sex aren't doing it to have a child. So no, it isn't as simple as you put it at the start of sex should mean parenthood.
If both want a child, then both are equally responsible. If one doesn't, yet it happens anyway, then they aren't equally responsible. If a woman choses a partner that everybody knows will not make good father material, and with most probability, wasn't even planning on sticking around for the relationship, then it's mainly her fault for picking such a man to have a child with. Is it an employees fault if he was hired by a boss, when the employee has no skill in the workforce, yet the boss hires him anyway, and the employee does a bad job? Whos fault is it for the work not being done properly? The man that lacked the qualities to do the job, or the boss's fault for hiring someone that lacked the qualities and knew they lacked the qualities? Same argument.
You can't fall pregnant to a man that can barely financially support himself, then expect him to stick around when he is expected to support a family, when he can't support himself financially. If the woman knew the qualities and limitations the man had, then she is responsible if the father doesn't stick around. None of them would survive if they were expecting to live off of a man that can't financially even support himself.
Your whole logic is like blaming the cake for a person being fat. It's just plain stupid.
Regardless, I've already explained why that part is just wrong, and yet I have to repeat it simply because you can't accept it.
Blackmail a woman in to having an abortion? What are you talking about? Where have I said that anyone has the right to blackmail someone in to abortion. Perhaps focus on what's being said rather than what you think is being said. Pretty sure you already tried to make it seem like I think blackmailing a woman to have an abortion is justified, when I think the opposite.
Ah, how's that fair? So when a male is required to pay money for the child and he doesn't want to, he should of "Kept it in his pants". But when a woman gets some form of free food, and child benefits, it's poor her? Yeah, because having to pay for a child they never wanted by having to work to pay for that child they never wanted is totally the same as getting free forms of food. -Sigh-
Well, if she doesn't like it that way, then she should of "kept it in her pants". Oh how I can tell you will be hating that being said, "That women should keep it in their pants" if they don't want to have to go through the responsibility of parenthood. Annoying right? Just like how many times you and others have said the male should keep it in his pants, then you expect me to pity females for getting free forms of food for their kids, while males have to work and pay for giving food to the child they never wanted, which cripples him for wanting to make a family with someone he can financially support due to paying for the kid he never wanted. Good insight on equality there.
If they have kids to men that don't support them, then that's their faults. Why would anyone in their right mind get pregnant to such people? So it's automaticly the man's fault for the woman "deciding" to "keep" a baby that the man that she knows won't help bring up? Who in the right mind would keep a child under those living ways? So it's the man's fault for the woman deciding to keep the child that wouldn't be properly supported...I just love your sense of equality, the whole "It's always the male's fault" part of equality...
Oh? So now it's unfair for the taxes to rise for unwanted kids? A minute ago you were saying it's unfair for people to pay for kids that aren't theirs at all, up until I proved to you that people already do it for single mothers. So now you change your tune? It's gone from not fair for paying at all, to not fair to pay more? So let me get this straight. You find it unfair that people should pay money for a man's choice through finiancial abortion, yet don't have a problem with people paying for women to have money because they didn't take the time to find a man that wants to be a father? Yeah good one.
So it's ok for women to get tax payers money spent on them, but not males? What a joke. You're jumping around looking for any point to make, even if it doesn't have any point at all.
How about nobody gets their taxes spent on parents? How about that?
ItDuz I love your rational, well thought and not emotional comments and how you fight against people like wigsplitz e.g. who don't get it or are just too ignorant to even try thinking rational... they aren't worth those arguments!
I know that by myself because wigsplitz argumented against me before.
Thanks. Yes, I would have to agree. I have actually lost track of how many times she argued with me. The last time she argued with me, she made the same point. For some odd reason I was too tired to debate with anyone for the amount of time I usually do, that period of time went on for about two to three months. But, luckily I've gotten back in to the old debating ways I used to be in, so I thought about her points and made counter points.
Unfortunatly, some people are just like that. It's people like them that stopped me debate about equality on behalf of the female gender alone, and started thinking about both sides of equality, the way it should be focused.
Thanks for your reply.
Would you believe that it's 3:20 and I'm up debating? Very tired. I might go to bed and pick this debate up tomorow. I mean, given that I'm doing it while I'm extremely tired, I think I'd have much more energy and focus to debate twice the amount I have with him/her at this time of night.
You: having to pay for kids that aren't yours is wrong! Never thought about that part on taxes, did you?
Me: People are basically taxed to raise kids that aren't their own, for single mothers. And you are complaining that money is being spent to bring up kids, saying it's unfair that tax payers have to pay for kids that aren't theirs at all?
You. Yeah, but they'd have to pay more! Women getting money from tax payers to raise a kid is ok, doing it for men is not!
Me: So you have gone to "Paying money for kids that aren't yours is wrong" to "Paying more money for kids that aren't yours is wrong"?
I have an idea. How about we take away the child benefits, and make all the tax money that goes to that go to financial abortion? Women are more than capable at getting jobs to support themselves and their child, due to them leaving colleges and universities with the most grades etc.
Really? Funny, how I don't know what fair is, yet you can't properly explain why it's not fair, only say it's not fair. Paying money for kids that aren't yours isn't fair switched to paying "more" money for kids that aren't yours is unfair simply due to me pointing out the fact that people pay single mothers for kids that aren't the tax payers', even though half of it goes on the mother, not the child.
But hey, feel free to explain "why" I don't know what fair is. Give me examples, and like everything else, I'll counter it. And before you say "You haven't countered anything" Prove that I haven't, because my comments alone prove that I have, and the fact that you're flip flopping your idea, avoiding important parts I include, shows that I have accuratly countered your points.
I have no arguement, yet all you can do is say I have no argument, and still not give me answeres to most of what my replies claim. "You have no argument! Oh, the majority of the points you made don't have any counters by me?...Well, em, I just don't want to counter them...Yeah, that's why". To quote the oh so great you: "What a joke".
If you want, I will make you a list of things from my replies to you that you have completely avoided, the ones you avoid answering, yet still insist I have no argument dispite you not able to answer the majority of the points made.
Want that list? I'll be more than happy to make one. But let me guess "You don't have the time" or "The points are irrelevant" etc, etc, yada, yada. I'm certain you'll make some excuse to not have to answer the majority of my points you choose to ignore.
Yeah, and how would others like to not have to pay for the single mothers that had children to a men that was obviously going to bail? I'm sure they'd like that, too. I know I would like that.
The only way for it to be fair is for males to get financial abortions, like females get abortion, or females don't get the tax payers money given to them to pay for children that aren't theirs, just like males won't get tax payers money spent on them for financial abortion. Now if you say that it isn't fair, I'm going to just facepalm so much, since you claime to know more about fairness than me. But, if you were to say it isn't fair, I expect an explantion on why it isn't. I'll have a counter in less than a minute for it.
"Look at the big picture. It's NOT fair for people to have to pay for kids that aren't theirs."
-Facepalm-
I repeated it three times, and put a part in capitals just so you can get it through what ever you call a brain, and understand a counter for that part. "Child benefits" Need it repeated? Either way, you'll still avoid it. Yes, it is unfair, but it still happens for women, what was it again? Oh yes, child benefits. Need it repeated? I would guess so. Chiiiiiiild benefiiiiiiiiiits...Still not got it? Fine, I'll repeat again. Child benefits. Child benefits. Child benefits. Child benefits...Do you get it now? Yes, it's unfair, but single mothers still get the tax payers money spent on them. You sit their claiming it's unfair that tax payers have to pay for someone elses child, yet I keep giving you a fact that they do it for single mothers. What you actually mean, is that it's unfair for the tax payers to pay for someone elses child for the benefit of males. That's what you really mean, even though you'd never admit it.
"Ahahahahahaha call a lawyer, call a judge. Ahahahahahahaha". Oh what a joke you are. Really. I just gave you counter point after counter point. Simply because something won't happen, doesn't mean something should happen.
I know I'm wrong, yet I've given counter point after counter point against you, and you're flopping around trying to figure out to counter me, in which I just counter you right back.
Face it, you're losing this one. Saying I'm wrong and proving I'm wrong are two different things, and you're only doing one of those...Guess which one that is.
-Sigh- You remind me of a child in the schoolyard. "You're wrong, you're wrong" then asked why, they just say "Because you're wrong" unable to make any "real" reason that can't be countered points.
I'm still waiting if you want to make any "new" points, despite me being able to counter them, simply because I've already countered them, yet you keep saying the same thing that has already been countered.
Sarcasm only works when you have the winning edge, you don't. Your little ending paragraph was more of a "I can't prove you wrong, so I'll tell you to do something NOBODY would ever be willing to do in order to settle a debate online.
The fact that you think any lawyer or judge would take time out of their careers to actually have a conversation with me on this topic without getting paid is just the typie of moronic thing I have come to expect out of you.
Better idea. phone up a lawyer/judge, and ask them "Would you be willing to listen to someones opinion on equality for no pay? The discussion has gone on for about two hours, but I'm sure you'd be willing to spend that time out of your career and private life, right?
You go ahead and do that, and then see who's the laughing stock.
The person that stated that all (or most) of the ground was linked together was laughed at for saying such a thing, but several years later due to fossil findings, it was proven to be true. If I was given the time, I could do the same with a lawyer/judge. But, even though my mother's job at a certain time in her life involved helping females with problems involved in this post, I could prove her wrong and make her see my point and agree.
I'd be more than happy to be in a conversation with a lawyer/judge through email. Go ahead and set it up for me, after all, you're the one wanting me to do it.
Can't wait to see your response there. Dare I say it, for the third time on this site ever. Yes I shall. "LOL".
I'm not losing anything, you're the one who's being rude.
Let's go point by point.
OK...
ABSOLUTE MAIN POINT: (!!!!!!)
States WILL NOT pay assistance without a good faith attempt to find and charge the bio father. Why should the state (and taxpayers) pay for a kid that isn't theirs? It's the LAW. Before ANY assistance is given, one must go through family court to get the rightful person to pay (whether it's a mother OR father)...as it should be.
1. First point: You want to coerce women into having abortions, That's indisputable, you've made that clear time and again. WRONG!!
What if a woman doesn't believe in abortions? So she's screwed because she holds her beliefs above your demands?
2. The amount of taxpayer money that will go to unsupported kids will skyrocket. Guess what? That means YOU and YOUR tax money too!! So, if you have NO kids, guess what, you'll be paying for other people's kids via taxes. You really want that?
3. Other innocent taxpayers don't want to pay for unsupported kids, and why should they? As I described to you before, 98% of shoppers don't steal, but EVERYONE pays for the thieves theft by higher prices. Is THAT fair?? NO!!
It doesn't even matter because it will never happen and it's a fucking stupid idea. The only people who will agree with you are morons who are deadbeats themselves. That's why I said to talk to a lawyer. Can't talk to a lawyer, then go sit in on court. Learn something. How idiotic.
Oh the irony. How you say for me to go through what you say "poinbt by point" yet you have completely avoided ansering the things you said you would gladly counter that I went through "point by point". -Facepalm-
I'm going to completely dominate you at your own points, because you obviously like to avoid all the main points I made specificly for you to answer that had everything to do with this topic.
You're right, why should anybody pay for a child that isn't theres. Like I keep saying "Child support". People "are" paying for children that aren't theirs because women are deciding to have kids to men that aren't willing or can financially support a themselves, let alone a family, but expect such men to turn in to high powered business men if they fall pregnant. If you even say "you keep repeating that part" to me, I will just go in to a fit of laughter. Because you keep avoiding that I point out how you say tax payers paying for other children is wrong, when most of the child support goes to women and kids that aren't the tax payers. You fail to mention that's wrong. What was it I said? Take the money from the person that gets child benefits, the ones that get money due to having to pay for a single mother's child due to her choosing to keep the child who's father can't or won't financially support the child, expecting to get tax payers money for their choice to keep the child, and give it to financial abortion so they can atleast get the choice females have.
First point? Easily countered.
Wrong, I am not coercing women in to having abortions. The woman gets to choose on her own free will if she'll keep the child or not. I'm saying the male will have the same choice as the female on the "parent's" role. If she wants to keep the child, that's completely up to her, but she should expect to be able to financially support it. This would also maybe make women wanting kids look for actual father material men that want kids that will actually support them and be there for the child, rather than getting pregnant to a man that she knows won't be able to financially support her, then expecting the tax payers to pay her child benefits.
Second point. Easily countered aswell, but I'll do two points, since you still avoid acknowledging that people are already paying for kids that aren't theirs thanks to single mothers that couldn't wait to find a proper father material man to have a child with:
Child support. People are still paying for those kids that aren't theirs, just on the behalf of women. Wrong. If anything, in the long run every form of paying for children that aren't yours will lower the taxes. If women don't get supported by the tax payers money, then they're going to have to get used to the idea that they can't have children with just anyone, they'd have to look for men that want to be a father, can be a father, and financially support the family. When females get it through to them that they need to find a father material man to have a child with, or face not being able to survive without financially supporting the child by themselves, they will look for men that will stick around, and financially support their child, meaning the tax payers won't be paying for the single mother's child due to her having to have a child that will be raised in the proper family setting, and with a parent working to financially support the family.
Third point.
You're right, why should they? "They are". God, fucking read, will you? People already are paying for children that aren't theirs. Do you need it slapped across your face to understand that that's where child benefits come from? Do you need a slide show to help you? God. It's like you need a five hour documentary to understand that one single point.
So yes, "why should they". How about the money that goes to child benefits from the tax payers get their money to go toward financial abortion? So that "their" money goes to "them" and not to a child that isn't theirs.
Yes, people ARE paying for kids that aren't theirs. But...HELLO!! If it was legal for a man to abandon his kid financially for life, then how many MORE kids will other people have to support? MILLIONS. Who can afford that? Why would a state go for that/ They wouldn't, they DON'T currently. There's NO way a state would allow people male or female to NOT support thier kids, how is that logical? The state doesn't want to pay, the taxpayers don't want to pay. The PARENTS should be paying. Period. So, counter that, smartiepants.
But "Hello", that is more so the female's fault for deciding to have a child who won't be able to get financially supported by the man. So instead of having a baby in which the mother knows the father won't support, she should not get pregnant by anyone except a man that she knows will financially support the child. But news flash. "Millions" of kids already are being paid for by the tax payers, all because the woman couldn't wait to look for a man that she knows will financially support the child. Not to mention, alot of females fall pregnant to keep a man in a relationship and get financially supported by child benefits. So in actual fact, a lot of the tax payers money is going to a child that was made for a woman to trap a man in a woman's life, and to claim free money.
But, like I said. "Millions" already is being paid for child benefits. So there goes your "Who can afford that" point.
They don't? Yep, I have a concussion by these facepalms you keep making me do. "They don't go for paying for millions to support kids" Yes they do. Chillllld bennnneeeefiiiiiiiiiits. < That was typed as if I was slowly saying it to you, since you can't understand simple things that have already been said.
There's no way? What? seriously? Adoption and abortion. Say it with me. Adooooption annnnd abortiooooon. Both choices a female has full control over. Oh, and just for the heads up. A lot of females survive on child benefits alone, so in all actuality, a lot of females are doing nothing financially to support themselves or their kids, except going down to an ATM to get the free money handed to them, all because they couldn't wait to find a man that would financially support her. Regardless, like I said in the comment listing the points you say are "retarded", females are leaving education with far more degrees, qualifications, etc. Which means she can get a job to financially support herself and the child on her own. But does she? Nope, she'd preffertaking the tax payers money rather than financially support her child and herself, which is possible, by working. For God sake; my mother supported three children with no benefits, she worked for her money. So if a single mother of three can do that, then how come a single mother of one can't?
The state doesn't want to pay - They do. Child benefits
The taxpayers don't want to pay - They do. Child benefits
The parents should be paying - Single mothers usually don't. Once again, child benefits.
Oh the hilarity of you saying "So, counter that, smatiepants", as if that was at all a challenge to counter. You didn't honestly think that couldn't be countered, did you?
...Actually, now that I think about it, I countered that point already, about three times now.
OK, you win....whatever....when you take this to the legislature, and they are just beaming over your brilliant idea, then give me a holler. I'll be waiting.
I'm not even going to bother with you anymore, you ask a question, people try to show you flaws in your plan and you refuse to even listen. How do you expect to learn ANYTHING if you NEVER listen.
Plus, you're just a kid, you have NO clue how the world works. Give it time.
The fact that you REFUSE to talk to a lawyer proves all points....you know damn well they'd have a good, hearty laugh at your expense because your idea is plain absurd. Scaredy cat. If you have so much confidence in your plan, and think you're SOOOOOO right, then why not talk to lawmakers?
I don't counter all your points because for one thing, they're not points, they're half-baked notions. No need to point out how retarded they are.
Funny how you kiss ass to the 3 idiots who agree with you, yet anyone who goes against you, you tear into instead of listening to their concerns. Don't you know, people who want to innovate or change things NEED opinions of all sorts in order to fine tune their agenda. You lack that skill, therefore you will never get anywhere. Do you think many successful and powerful people got that way by being a close-minded prick? No, they didn't.
So, with that, I'll see ya around, but as for this discussion, I'm out. Learn to read and be more tolerant instead of flying into a rage every time someone disagrees with you. It's black and white with you, if someone agrees, you LOVE them. Disagree, and they've become your worst enemy. That's not how to get tings done. Talk to professionals, find out how successful people 'made it'. That should help you. Of course, maybe not because they'd probably criticize your attitude and mannerisms. You'll never get anywhere in life acting like this.
-Sigh- How am I expected to listen to someone that is refusing to show the "flaws" of the main points I make? Like I said, if you call it a flaw, prove it, don't say it is then avoid proving it, mostly because you can't.
So yeah, I guess it is my fault to not listen to the flaws that you never show... -sigh-
I'm just a kid...Yet you have the hardest time proving this kids idea to be stupid, and fail to do it. Also, I'm not a "kid", I'm a young adult. Granted, I'm not in the adult world yet, but that doesn't make me a kid. Besides, what you reffer to as "Kids" could have more info on this subject than an adult, it just depends on who spends the most time on the subject.
The fact that I refuse to call a layer, ask them to have a two hour plus debate with me, not paying them, expecting them to waste more than two hours of their career time that they could be spending time earning money from, or personal time in which I doubt they'd want to talk to someone asking for a two hour plus debate on something that he/she most likely cares nothing about. So no, the fact that I won't call a lawyer, expecting them to do the above, for no financial gain proves that I have something you don't...Common sense. Like I said, you made my statement in to a debate, you brought the suggestion up, and I'll be happy to talk to them. It's not the talking to them that I feel I will make a fool of myself doing, it's the expecting them to spend so much time out of their day for no gain that will definetly make me look like a fool. The fact that you aren't willing to do so is also an indicator that you yourself know that it's a stupid, illogical thing to do. But hey, better idea. How about "You" phone these people up, and explain the debate on your half? Eh? How about you phone up to prove me wrong? Oh, that's right, because you know it's a stupid idea. -Facepalm-
-Facepalm- Really, you will give me a concussion with the amount of times you're making me facepalm.
You have claimed most of my points "Stupid" yet you were happy to "try" counter them? Then when you say "I'll gladly reply to the points, go ahead and make the list" you completely avoid the questions. Oh, ofcourse, it's my points that are retarded. So no, don't try to say the most patheicly obvious failing argument tactic: "Your points are too retarded to answer". I mean, seriously. Have some self respect atleast. You remind me of those kids that say "I can do that if I wanted to, I just don't want to".
If my points are so retarded, then they'd be easily countered, right? And since you are more tham happy to make six paragraphs attempting to insult, then you should have the time to go through these "reatarded points" and counter them with ease, right?
You're a joke. Fact is, you asked, I delivered, and you didn't like the package. It's not that you won't counter them, it's that you can't counter them, and the fact that you think people are too stupid to notice it is just astounding and pathetic.
I kiss ass? It's called being polite to the people being polite to you, but I like how you "try" to turn that in to someone "kissing ass". I tear in to them? Well, that's because I have heard their points before and countered them before, too.
"The three idiots"? Ah, that's right, after just claiming one has to hear another's opinions to make an accurate change, you call three people that have different opinions as you as "idiots". Practice what you preach. You contradict yourself flopping around for new points, if you can call them that.
Oh, and by the way, it's more than three people, more so about six or seven people that agree with me. I shared this whole thing with the chat, and let me tell you, things such as logical, thoughtful, sense, understanding where "not" the words being described about you. But let me guess, you'll say those people are idiots, too? What's sad is that you most likely would.
A "close-minded prick". It's not "close-minded" when the person is correct in which they're debating. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't take the points that can easily be countered as valuable parts needed for a change...Silly me for thinking useless points aren't a benefit to have. Remember, lawyers are all about being close-minded, fighting for their client, so people do get far like that. -Facepalm-
I like how you say "as for this discussion, I'm out"...Wigsplitz, you were out of this discussion long ago, believe me. Flying in to rage? I'm sitting here with a smile on my face, of how easily dealt you are. I have dissagreed and debated with people that agree with me on this subject, and I have agreed completely with people on other topic that don't agree with me on others. So that whole love them, hate them part is very innacurate.
Yes, because I'm going to take life lessons from you of all people...That's laughable.
Ah yes, you mean like my mother? Someone that has worked with people that would be involved in situations this debate is about? She fully agrees that financial abortion should be allowed. How about people such as the Youtuber "TheAmazingAtheist"? How about the Youtuber "Girlwrites what", a mother of three children, just like my mother?
Only people that will agree with me are morons? I've just proven every popint you have wrong, then when I show you more points that you can't counter, specificly to show you that you can't counter them, you avoid answering them at all. You can't call someone a moron if you can't even counter their points.
Like I said, you set it up, and I'll talk to them. Yes, sit in court, then what? All I can do is sit and listen. If I was to say something that is an accurate counter point, I would be flung out, not because of the point being presented, but because of me speaking in a case that has nothing to do with me. So repeat the bit that comes after that bit, you know, the bit about learning something.
How idiotic, how idiotic, how idiotic, you moron, you moron, idiot, idiot, etc, etc, yada, yada.
Those fricken statements only work and can be taken seriously if you are winning the debate. As I explained, I have already won this debate due to you refusing to answer the main point I presented, presented just to prove you couldn't answer them, in which case you couldn'teven attempt to.
Calling someone who's winning a debate while you lose a debate am idiot, or say their claim is idiotic, even when you're losing the whole debate of whether or not it's idiotic, is just plain stupid. You're an idiot. And see how I am able to do that and it actually can be considered an accurate statement? That's because I won this debate.
The sad thing is, you know you lost this debate, and I know you know it. You just can't admit defeat, even when you have been beaten to the ground in this debate. It's just plain sad. The more you try to make a point, the easier it gets for me, because with each point of yours I counter, you flip flop to an even easier point to counter, or just repeat a point I have already countered.
I introduced this to the nice users of the chat room. Even they are sitting there like "What the fuck?" at your selfproclaimed counter points.
Keep them coming, Wigsplitz. I can counter any point you throw at me, where as all you can do is hide from mine.
But I guess I should apologize, I gave you the false impression that you could win a debate with me due to not making as much effort in my earlier debates with you. You obviously noticed the difference between our debates from now and from last time we debated. Want to know the reason why the sudden change? On how the taxpayers argument was different in our last debate than it is now? Simple, the taxpayers arguement wasn't that changed, I did. When we last had our discussion, I wasn't motivated to put much effort in to proving myself right, but now I am back to the way I used to be, motivated to prove my point right, and even more motivated to smash arrogant, pathetic, sarcastic peoples's egos such as yourself, down to the ground in debates.
There is one thing you can learn from this, Wigsplitz, and that is to not engage in a debate with me again in hopes of proving what little point you think you have, unless you want want a long debate that will result in me winning half way through it, then for the rest of the debate, you trying to hold the broken pieced of your fragile ego to the point of making yourself look like an idiot.
Abortion: Against or For?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Wrong. It amazes me that you call and imply that I'm the moron here.
Sex isn't mainly used for reproduction in today's world, it's for pleasure. Most people that have sex aren't doing it to have a child. So no, it isn't as simple as you put it at the start of sex should mean parenthood.
If both want a child, then both are equally responsible. If one doesn't, yet it happens anyway, then they aren't equally responsible. If a woman choses a partner that everybody knows will not make good father material, and with most probability, wasn't even planning on sticking around for the relationship, then it's mainly her fault for picking such a man to have a child with. Is it an employees fault if he was hired by a boss, when the employee has no skill in the workforce, yet the boss hires him anyway, and the employee does a bad job? Whos fault is it for the work not being done properly? The man that lacked the qualities to do the job, or the boss's fault for hiring someone that lacked the qualities and knew they lacked the qualities? Same argument.
You can't fall pregnant to a man that can barely financially support himself, then expect him to stick around when he is expected to support a family, when he can't support himself financially. If the woman knew the qualities and limitations the man had, then she is responsible if the father doesn't stick around. None of them would survive if they were expecting to live off of a man that can't financially even support himself.
Your whole logic is like blaming the cake for a person being fat. It's just plain stupid.
Regardless, I've already explained why that part is just wrong, and yet I have to repeat it simply because you can't accept it.
Blackmail a woman in to having an abortion? What are you talking about? Where have I said that anyone has the right to blackmail someone in to abortion. Perhaps focus on what's being said rather than what you think is being said. Pretty sure you already tried to make it seem like I think blackmailing a woman to have an abortion is justified, when I think the opposite.
Ah, how's that fair? So when a male is required to pay money for the child and he doesn't want to, he should of "Kept it in his pants". But when a woman gets some form of free food, and child benefits, it's poor her? Yeah, because having to pay for a child they never wanted by having to work to pay for that child they never wanted is totally the same as getting free forms of food. -Sigh-
Well, if she doesn't like it that way, then she should of "kept it in her pants". Oh how I can tell you will be hating that being said, "That women should keep it in their pants" if they don't want to have to go through the responsibility of parenthood. Annoying right? Just like how many times you and others have said the male should keep it in his pants, then you expect me to pity females for getting free forms of food for their kids, while males have to work and pay for giving food to the child they never wanted, which cripples him for wanting to make a family with someone he can financially support due to paying for the kid he never wanted. Good insight on equality there.
If they have kids to men that don't support them, then that's their faults. Why would anyone in their right mind get pregnant to such people? So it's automaticly the man's fault for the woman "deciding" to "keep" a baby that the man that she knows won't help bring up? Who in the right mind would keep a child under those living ways? So it's the man's fault for the woman deciding to keep the child that wouldn't be properly supported...I just love your sense of equality, the whole "It's always the male's fault" part of equality...
Oh? So now it's unfair for the taxes to rise for unwanted kids? A minute ago you were saying it's unfair for people to pay for kids that aren't theirs at all, up until I proved to you that people already do it for single mothers. So now you change your tune? It's gone from not fair for paying at all, to not fair to pay more? So let me get this straight. You find it unfair that people should pay money for a man's choice through finiancial abortion, yet don't have a problem with people paying for women to have money because they didn't take the time to find a man that wants to be a father? Yeah good one.
So it's ok for women to get tax payers money spent on them, but not males? What a joke. You're jumping around looking for any point to make, even if it doesn't have any point at all.
How about nobody gets their taxes spent on parents? How about that?
--
DolphinAngel
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
ItDuz I love your rational, well thought and not emotional comments and how you fight against people like wigsplitz e.g. who don't get it or are just too ignorant to even try thinking rational... they aren't worth those arguments!
I know that by myself because wigsplitz argumented against me before.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thanks. Yes, I would have to agree. I have actually lost track of how many times she argued with me. The last time she argued with me, she made the same point. For some odd reason I was too tired to debate with anyone for the amount of time I usually do, that period of time went on for about two to three months. But, luckily I've gotten back in to the old debating ways I used to be in, so I thought about her points and made counter points.
Unfortunatly, some people are just like that. It's people like them that stopped me debate about equality on behalf of the female gender alone, and started thinking about both sides of equality, the way it should be focused.
Thanks for your reply.
Would you believe that it's 3:20 and I'm up debating? Very tired. I might go to bed and pick this debate up tomorow. I mean, given that I'm doing it while I'm extremely tired, I think I'd have much more energy and focus to debate twice the amount I have with him/her at this time of night.
Thanks again.
--
DolphinAngel
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I know, that happens to me all the time especially the point with the time^^
You: having to pay for kids that aren't yours is wrong! Never thought about that part on taxes, did you?
Me: People are basically taxed to raise kids that aren't their own, for single mothers. And you are complaining that money is being spent to bring up kids, saying it's unfair that tax payers have to pay for kids that aren't theirs at all?
You. Yeah, but they'd have to pay more! Women getting money from tax payers to raise a kid is ok, doing it for men is not!
Me: So you have gone to "Paying money for kids that aren't yours is wrong" to "Paying more money for kids that aren't yours is wrong"?
I have an idea. How about we take away the child benefits, and make all the tax money that goes to that go to financial abortion? Women are more than capable at getting jobs to support themselves and their child, due to them leaving colleges and universities with the most grades etc.
Really? Funny, how I don't know what fair is, yet you can't properly explain why it's not fair, only say it's not fair. Paying money for kids that aren't yours isn't fair switched to paying "more" money for kids that aren't yours is unfair simply due to me pointing out the fact that people pay single mothers for kids that aren't the tax payers', even though half of it goes on the mother, not the child.
But hey, feel free to explain "why" I don't know what fair is. Give me examples, and like everything else, I'll counter it. And before you say "You haven't countered anything" Prove that I haven't, because my comments alone prove that I have, and the fact that you're flip flopping your idea, avoiding important parts I include, shows that I have accuratly countered your points.
I have no arguement, yet all you can do is say I have no argument, and still not give me answeres to most of what my replies claim. "You have no argument! Oh, the majority of the points you made don't have any counters by me?...Well, em, I just don't want to counter them...Yeah, that's why". To quote the oh so great you: "What a joke".
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
If you want, I will make you a list of things from my replies to you that you have completely avoided, the ones you avoid answering, yet still insist I have no argument dispite you not able to answer the majority of the points made.
Want that list? I'll be more than happy to make one. But let me guess "You don't have the time" or "The points are irrelevant" etc, etc, yada, yada. I'm certain you'll make some excuse to not have to answer the majority of my points you choose to ignore.
Yeah, and how would others like to not have to pay for the single mothers that had children to a men that was obviously going to bail? I'm sure they'd like that, too. I know I would like that.
The only way for it to be fair is for males to get financial abortions, like females get abortion, or females don't get the tax payers money given to them to pay for children that aren't theirs, just like males won't get tax payers money spent on them for financial abortion. Now if you say that it isn't fair, I'm going to just facepalm so much, since you claime to know more about fairness than me. But, if you were to say it isn't fair, I expect an explantion on why it isn't. I'll have a counter in less than a minute for it.
"Look at the big picture. It's NOT fair for people to have to pay for kids that aren't theirs."
-Facepalm-
I repeated it three times, and put a part in capitals just so you can get it through what ever you call a brain, and understand a counter for that part. "Child benefits" Need it repeated? Either way, you'll still avoid it. Yes, it is unfair, but it still happens for women, what was it again? Oh yes, child benefits. Need it repeated? I would guess so. Chiiiiiiild benefiiiiiiiiiits...Still not got it? Fine, I'll repeat again. Child benefits. Child benefits. Child benefits. Child benefits...Do you get it now? Yes, it's unfair, but single mothers still get the tax payers money spent on them. You sit their claiming it's unfair that tax payers have to pay for someone elses child, yet I keep giving you a fact that they do it for single mothers. What you actually mean, is that it's unfair for the tax payers to pay for someone elses child for the benefit of males. That's what you really mean, even though you'd never admit it.
"Ahahahahahaha call a lawyer, call a judge. Ahahahahahahaha". Oh what a joke you are. Really. I just gave you counter point after counter point. Simply because something won't happen, doesn't mean something should happen.
I know I'm wrong, yet I've given counter point after counter point against you, and you're flopping around trying to figure out to counter me, in which I just counter you right back.
Face it, you're losing this one. Saying I'm wrong and proving I'm wrong are two different things, and you're only doing one of those...Guess which one that is.
-Sigh- You remind me of a child in the schoolyard. "You're wrong, you're wrong" then asked why, they just say "Because you're wrong" unable to make any "real" reason that can't be countered points.
I'm still waiting if you want to make any "new" points, despite me being able to counter them, simply because I've already countered them, yet you keep saying the same thing that has already been countered.
Sarcasm only works when you have the winning edge, you don't. Your little ending paragraph was more of a "I can't prove you wrong, so I'll tell you to do something NOBODY would ever be willing to do in order to settle a debate online.
The fact that you think any lawyer or judge would take time out of their careers to actually have a conversation with me on this topic without getting paid is just the typie of moronic thing I have come to expect out of you.
Better idea. phone up a lawyer/judge, and ask them "Would you be willing to listen to someones opinion on equality for no pay? The discussion has gone on for about two hours, but I'm sure you'd be willing to spend that time out of your career and private life, right?
You go ahead and do that, and then see who's the laughing stock.
The person that stated that all (or most) of the ground was linked together was laughed at for saying such a thing, but several years later due to fossil findings, it was proven to be true. If I was given the time, I could do the same with a lawyer/judge. But, even though my mother's job at a certain time in her life involved helping females with problems involved in this post, I could prove her wrong and make her see my point and agree.
I'd be more than happy to be in a conversation with a lawyer/judge through email. Go ahead and set it up for me, after all, you're the one wanting me to do it.
Can't wait to see your response there. Dare I say it, for the third time on this site ever. Yes I shall. "LOL".
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm not losing anything, you're the one who's being rude.
Let's go point by point.
OK...
ABSOLUTE MAIN POINT: (!!!!!!)
States WILL NOT pay assistance without a good faith attempt to find and charge the bio father. Why should the state (and taxpayers) pay for a kid that isn't theirs? It's the LAW. Before ANY assistance is given, one must go through family court to get the rightful person to pay (whether it's a mother OR father)...as it should be.
1. First point: You want to coerce women into having abortions, That's indisputable, you've made that clear time and again. WRONG!!
What if a woman doesn't believe in abortions? So she's screwed because she holds her beliefs above your demands?
2. The amount of taxpayer money that will go to unsupported kids will skyrocket. Guess what? That means YOU and YOUR tax money too!! So, if you have NO kids, guess what, you'll be paying for other people's kids via taxes. You really want that?
3. Other innocent taxpayers don't want to pay for unsupported kids, and why should they? As I described to you before, 98% of shoppers don't steal, but EVERYONE pays for the thieves theft by higher prices. Is THAT fair?? NO!!
It doesn't even matter because it will never happen and it's a fucking stupid idea. The only people who will agree with you are morons who are deadbeats themselves. That's why I said to talk to a lawyer. Can't talk to a lawyer, then go sit in on court. Learn something. How idiotic.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh the irony. How you say for me to go through what you say "poinbt by point" yet you have completely avoided ansering the things you said you would gladly counter that I went through "point by point". -Facepalm-
I'm going to completely dominate you at your own points, because you obviously like to avoid all the main points I made specificly for you to answer that had everything to do with this topic.
You're right, why should anybody pay for a child that isn't theres. Like I keep saying "Child support". People "are" paying for children that aren't theirs because women are deciding to have kids to men that aren't willing or can financially support a themselves, let alone a family, but expect such men to turn in to high powered business men if they fall pregnant. If you even say "you keep repeating that part" to me, I will just go in to a fit of laughter. Because you keep avoiding that I point out how you say tax payers paying for other children is wrong, when most of the child support goes to women and kids that aren't the tax payers. You fail to mention that's wrong. What was it I said? Take the money from the person that gets child benefits, the ones that get money due to having to pay for a single mother's child due to her choosing to keep the child who's father can't or won't financially support the child, expecting to get tax payers money for their choice to keep the child, and give it to financial abortion so they can atleast get the choice females have.
First point? Easily countered.
Wrong, I am not coercing women in to having abortions. The woman gets to choose on her own free will if she'll keep the child or not. I'm saying the male will have the same choice as the female on the "parent's" role. If she wants to keep the child, that's completely up to her, but she should expect to be able to financially support it. This would also maybe make women wanting kids look for actual father material men that want kids that will actually support them and be there for the child, rather than getting pregnant to a man that she knows won't be able to financially support her, then expecting the tax payers to pay her child benefits.
Second point. Easily countered aswell, but I'll do two points, since you still avoid acknowledging that people are already paying for kids that aren't theirs thanks to single mothers that couldn't wait to find a proper father material man to have a child with:
Child support. People are still paying for those kids that aren't theirs, just on the behalf of women. Wrong. If anything, in the long run every form of paying for children that aren't yours will lower the taxes. If women don't get supported by the tax payers money, then they're going to have to get used to the idea that they can't have children with just anyone, they'd have to look for men that want to be a father, can be a father, and financially support the family. When females get it through to them that they need to find a father material man to have a child with, or face not being able to survive without financially supporting the child by themselves, they will look for men that will stick around, and financially support their child, meaning the tax payers won't be paying for the single mother's child due to her having to have a child that will be raised in the proper family setting, and with a parent working to financially support the family.
Third point.
You're right, why should they? "They are". God, fucking read, will you? People already are paying for children that aren't theirs. Do you need it slapped across your face to understand that that's where child benefits come from? Do you need a slide show to help you? God. It's like you need a five hour documentary to understand that one single point.
So yes, "why should they". How about the money that goes to child benefits from the tax payers get their money to go toward financial abortion? So that "their" money goes to "them" and not to a child that isn't theirs.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, people ARE paying for kids that aren't theirs. But...HELLO!! If it was legal for a man to abandon his kid financially for life, then how many MORE kids will other people have to support? MILLIONS. Who can afford that? Why would a state go for that/ They wouldn't, they DON'T currently. There's NO way a state would allow people male or female to NOT support thier kids, how is that logical? The state doesn't want to pay, the taxpayers don't want to pay. The PARENTS should be paying. Period. So, counter that, smartiepants.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
But "Hello", that is more so the female's fault for deciding to have a child who won't be able to get financially supported by the man. So instead of having a baby in which the mother knows the father won't support, she should not get pregnant by anyone except a man that she knows will financially support the child. But news flash. "Millions" of kids already are being paid for by the tax payers, all because the woman couldn't wait to look for a man that she knows will financially support the child. Not to mention, alot of females fall pregnant to keep a man in a relationship and get financially supported by child benefits. So in actual fact, a lot of the tax payers money is going to a child that was made for a woman to trap a man in a woman's life, and to claim free money.
But, like I said. "Millions" already is being paid for child benefits. So there goes your "Who can afford that" point.
They don't? Yep, I have a concussion by these facepalms you keep making me do. "They don't go for paying for millions to support kids" Yes they do. Chillllld bennnneeeefiiiiiiiiiits. < That was typed as if I was slowly saying it to you, since you can't understand simple things that have already been said.
There's no way? What? seriously? Adoption and abortion. Say it with me. Adooooption annnnd abortiooooon. Both choices a female has full control over. Oh, and just for the heads up. A lot of females survive on child benefits alone, so in all actuality, a lot of females are doing nothing financially to support themselves or their kids, except going down to an ATM to get the free money handed to them, all because they couldn't wait to find a man that would financially support her. Regardless, like I said in the comment listing the points you say are "retarded", females are leaving education with far more degrees, qualifications, etc. Which means she can get a job to financially support herself and the child on her own. But does she? Nope, she'd preffertaking the tax payers money rather than financially support her child and herself, which is possible, by working. For God sake; my mother supported three children with no benefits, she worked for her money. So if a single mother of three can do that, then how come a single mother of one can't?
The state doesn't want to pay - They do. Child benefits
The taxpayers don't want to pay - They do. Child benefits
The parents should be paying - Single mothers usually don't. Once again, child benefits.
Oh the hilarity of you saying "So, counter that, smatiepants", as if that was at all a challenge to counter. You didn't honestly think that couldn't be countered, did you?
...Actually, now that I think about it, I countered that point already, about three times now.
OK, you win....whatever....when you take this to the legislature, and they are just beaming over your brilliant idea, then give me a holler. I'll be waiting.
I'm not even going to bother with you anymore, you ask a question, people try to show you flaws in your plan and you refuse to even listen. How do you expect to learn ANYTHING if you NEVER listen.
Plus, you're just a kid, you have NO clue how the world works. Give it time.
The fact that you REFUSE to talk to a lawyer proves all points....you know damn well they'd have a good, hearty laugh at your expense because your idea is plain absurd. Scaredy cat. If you have so much confidence in your plan, and think you're SOOOOOO right, then why not talk to lawmakers?
I don't counter all your points because for one thing, they're not points, they're half-baked notions. No need to point out how retarded they are.
Funny how you kiss ass to the 3 idiots who agree with you, yet anyone who goes against you, you tear into instead of listening to their concerns. Don't you know, people who want to innovate or change things NEED opinions of all sorts in order to fine tune their agenda. You lack that skill, therefore you will never get anywhere. Do you think many successful and powerful people got that way by being a close-minded prick? No, they didn't.
So, with that, I'll see ya around, but as for this discussion, I'm out. Learn to read and be more tolerant instead of flying into a rage every time someone disagrees with you. It's black and white with you, if someone agrees, you LOVE them. Disagree, and they've become your worst enemy. That's not how to get tings done. Talk to professionals, find out how successful people 'made it'. That should help you. Of course, maybe not because they'd probably criticize your attitude and mannerisms. You'll never get anywhere in life acting like this.
See ya.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-Sigh- How am I expected to listen to someone that is refusing to show the "flaws" of the main points I make? Like I said, if you call it a flaw, prove it, don't say it is then avoid proving it, mostly because you can't.
So yeah, I guess it is my fault to not listen to the flaws that you never show... -sigh-
I'm just a kid...Yet you have the hardest time proving this kids idea to be stupid, and fail to do it. Also, I'm not a "kid", I'm a young adult. Granted, I'm not in the adult world yet, but that doesn't make me a kid. Besides, what you reffer to as "Kids" could have more info on this subject than an adult, it just depends on who spends the most time on the subject.
The fact that I refuse to call a layer, ask them to have a two hour plus debate with me, not paying them, expecting them to waste more than two hours of their career time that they could be spending time earning money from, or personal time in which I doubt they'd want to talk to someone asking for a two hour plus debate on something that he/she most likely cares nothing about. So no, the fact that I won't call a lawyer, expecting them to do the above, for no financial gain proves that I have something you don't...Common sense. Like I said, you made my statement in to a debate, you brought the suggestion up, and I'll be happy to talk to them. It's not the talking to them that I feel I will make a fool of myself doing, it's the expecting them to spend so much time out of their day for no gain that will definetly make me look like a fool. The fact that you aren't willing to do so is also an indicator that you yourself know that it's a stupid, illogical thing to do. But hey, better idea. How about "You" phone these people up, and explain the debate on your half? Eh? How about you phone up to prove me wrong? Oh, that's right, because you know it's a stupid idea. -Facepalm-
-Facepalm- Really, you will give me a concussion with the amount of times you're making me facepalm.
You have claimed most of my points "Stupid" yet you were happy to "try" counter them? Then when you say "I'll gladly reply to the points, go ahead and make the list" you completely avoid the questions. Oh, ofcourse, it's my points that are retarded. So no, don't try to say the most patheicly obvious failing argument tactic: "Your points are too retarded to answer". I mean, seriously. Have some self respect atleast. You remind me of those kids that say "I can do that if I wanted to, I just don't want to".
If my points are so retarded, then they'd be easily countered, right? And since you are more tham happy to make six paragraphs attempting to insult, then you should have the time to go through these "reatarded points" and counter them with ease, right?
You're a joke. Fact is, you asked, I delivered, and you didn't like the package. It's not that you won't counter them, it's that you can't counter them, and the fact that you think people are too stupid to notice it is just astounding and pathetic.
I kiss ass? It's called being polite to the people being polite to you, but I like how you "try" to turn that in to someone "kissing ass". I tear in to them? Well, that's because I have heard their points before and countered them before, too.
"The three idiots"? Ah, that's right, after just claiming one has to hear another's opinions to make an accurate change, you call three people that have different opinions as you as "idiots". Practice what you preach. You contradict yourself flopping around for new points, if you can call them that.
Oh, and by the way, it's more than three people, more so about six or seven people that agree with me. I shared this whole thing with the chat, and let me tell you, things such as logical, thoughtful, sense, understanding where "not" the words being described about you. But let me guess, you'll say those people are idiots, too? What's sad is that you most likely would.
A "close-minded prick". It's not "close-minded" when the person is correct in which they're debating. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't take the points that can easily be countered as valuable parts needed for a change...Silly me for thinking useless points aren't a benefit to have. Remember, lawyers are all about being close-minded, fighting for their client, so people do get far like that. -Facepalm-
I like how you say "as for this discussion, I'm out"...Wigsplitz, you were out of this discussion long ago, believe me. Flying in to rage? I'm sitting here with a smile on my face, of how easily dealt you are. I have dissagreed and debated with people that agree with me on this subject, and I have agreed completely with people on other topic that don't agree with me on others. So that whole love them, hate them part is very innacurate.
Yes, because I'm going to take life lessons from you of all people...That's laughable.
Goodbye, it has been entertaining.
Ah yes, you mean like my mother? Someone that has worked with people that would be involved in situations this debate is about? She fully agrees that financial abortion should be allowed. How about people such as the Youtuber "TheAmazingAtheist"? How about the Youtuber "Girlwrites what", a mother of three children, just like my mother?
Only people that will agree with me are morons? I've just proven every popint you have wrong, then when I show you more points that you can't counter, specificly to show you that you can't counter them, you avoid answering them at all. You can't call someone a moron if you can't even counter their points.
Like I said, you set it up, and I'll talk to them. Yes, sit in court, then what? All I can do is sit and listen. If I was to say something that is an accurate counter point, I would be flung out, not because of the point being presented, but because of me speaking in a case that has nothing to do with me. So repeat the bit that comes after that bit, you know, the bit about learning something.
How idiotic, how idiotic, how idiotic, you moron, you moron, idiot, idiot, etc, etc, yada, yada.
Those fricken statements only work and can be taken seriously if you are winning the debate. As I explained, I have already won this debate due to you refusing to answer the main point I presented, presented just to prove you couldn't answer them, in which case you couldn'teven attempt to.
Calling someone who's winning a debate while you lose a debate am idiot, or say their claim is idiotic, even when you're losing the whole debate of whether or not it's idiotic, is just plain stupid. You're an idiot. And see how I am able to do that and it actually can be considered an accurate statement? That's because I won this debate.
The sad thing is, you know you lost this debate, and I know you know it. You just can't admit defeat, even when you have been beaten to the ground in this debate. It's just plain sad. The more you try to make a point, the easier it gets for me, because with each point of yours I counter, you flip flop to an even easier point to counter, or just repeat a point I have already countered.
I introduced this to the nice users of the chat room. Even they are sitting there like "What the fuck?" at your selfproclaimed counter points.
Keep them coming, Wigsplitz. I can counter any point you throw at me, where as all you can do is hide from mine.
But I guess I should apologize, I gave you the false impression that you could win a debate with me due to not making as much effort in my earlier debates with you. You obviously noticed the difference between our debates from now and from last time we debated. Want to know the reason why the sudden change? On how the taxpayers argument was different in our last debate than it is now? Simple, the taxpayers arguement wasn't that changed, I did. When we last had our discussion, I wasn't motivated to put much effort in to proving myself right, but now I am back to the way I used to be, motivated to prove my point right, and even more motivated to smash arrogant, pathetic, sarcastic peoples's egos such as yourself, down to the ground in debates.
There is one thing you can learn from this, Wigsplitz, and that is to not engage in a debate with me again in hopes of proving what little point you think you have, unless you want want a long debate that will result in me winning half way through it, then for the rest of the debate, you trying to hold the broken pieced of your fragile ego to the point of making yourself look like an idiot.
You lose.