HOF44 Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I think this case has shown if you are a single male in WV your best course to keep form paying child support is to date married women, if they get pregnant you are still golden. Turns out their husbands are then responsible not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 I think this case has shown if you are a single male in WV your best course to keep form paying child support is to date married women, if they get pregnant you are still golden. Turns out their husbands are then responsible not you. Pre-emptive strike: Actually, your best course in WV is to stick to sheep. They don't bear human children. And even if they did, they can't testify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Then you better abstain from sex or make sure you are using some good protection, because it doesn't matter if you are married. Once she has a kid with you, you are tied to her forever. You wouldn't have alimony, but child support. Some states have common law marriages that would make you pay if you shacked up with her. unless you are sleeping with married women. apparently then, the husband will be liable for the kid, at least in 38 states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxima2000 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 I think all non-violent offenders should be on home monitors and not in jail. Why should we pay for internment of non-violent offenders? Wait, did you really just say that? So Bernie Madoff shouldn't be in a prison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bootleg Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Wait, did you really just say that? So Bernie Madoff shouldn't be in a prison? How about all prison sentences are decided by a jury? Not recommended... But decided. A judge cannot impose a prison sentence by himself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 I will never understand throwing someone in jail over this type of expense. They are not earning money in jail. I think I agree with most of what HH, KD, and Tweed have said. I do agree with LSF to a point with non-violent offenders. LSF,Do you believe that the top of the chain drug dealer should be in prison ? Words are not violent. Edit: I thought that was your comment. However, I do not think Bernie should be in jail either. Force him to re-pay his debt, no extra potential earnings BS, but just what he stole. I don't care if he works at McDonalds and lives on the street, but make him give it all back even if it is charity type of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 What law did he break? And where is he sitting right now? And do you really want to compare alimony and child support to a 4 time convicted drug dealer? you're right, it is a different situation. one is a man selling a product to those who want it, and the other is a man cheating a woman out of tens of thousands of dollars that the courts deemed he owed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 you're right, it is a different situation. one is a man selling a product to those who want it, and the other is a man cheating a woman out of tens of thousands of dollars that the courts deemed he owed. Well played. We should only enforce the laws we like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 you're right, it is a different situation. one is a man selling a product to those who want it, and the other is a man cheating a woman out of tens of thousands of dollars that the courts deemed he owed. Well, yeah, but one of them is selling a product to people who want it, but we think that they shouldn't want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 you're right, it is a different situation. one is a man selling a product to those who want it, and the other is a man cheating a woman out of tens of thousands of dollars that the courts deemed he owed. are you just comparing situations in order to prove your correctness in another thread? who cares man, they are completely different situations. one is about a guy who chooses to repeatedly sell drugs for a living. the other is about a guy whose life is being ruined by a woman who cheated on him. not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 are you just comparing situations in order to prove your correctness in another thread? who cares man, they are completely different situations. one is about a guy who chooses to repeatedly sell drugs for a living. the other is about a guy whose life is being ruined by a woman who cheated on him. not the same. You're twisting the same way he is. The guy is ruining his own life. As much as it sucks, the law is the law and he was ordered to pay. The fact that he prefers to quit multiple jobs and go to jail than pay, for reasons of principle, is not her fault. Or is the rule of law only important when we like the point they're making? Must be because everyone trips over themselves to say how a pot dealer deserves jail because "he broke the law". You can't pick and choose which laws deserve to be ignored, especially if you're a law and order guy on other subjects. Personally my respect for the law is mostly out of fear of jail, I don't have much respect for our justice system at all so I'm completely comfortable with people breaking it. The more it gets undermined the great the chance it will have to get re-examined and drastically changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 You're twisting the same way he is. The guy is ruining his own life. As much as it sucks, the law is the law and he was ordered to pay. The fact that he prefers to quit multiple jobs and go to jail than pay, for reasons of principle, is not her fault. Or is the rule of law only important when we like the point they're making? Must be because everyone trips over themselves to say how a pot dealer deserves jail because "he broke the law". You can't pick and choose which laws deserve to be ignored, especially if you're a law and order guy on other subjects. Personally my respect for the law is mostly out of fear of jail, I don't have much respect for our justice system at all so I'm completely comfortable with people breaking it. The more it gets undermined the great the chance it will have to get re-examined and drastically changed. Jim Crow was the law once too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Jim Crow was the law once too. It's not like I agree this guy should be in jail or agree with what happened to him. What I do agree with is what Poker was trying to point out which is all the "do the crime, do they the time", "I have no pity for this scummy drug dealer" posts from the other thread who's authors showed up here talking about a travesty and tragedy and he shouldn't have to pay. Pp, imo, correctly pointed out some hypocrisy in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 It's not like I agree this guy should be in jail or agree with what happened to him. What I do agree with is what Poker was trying to point out which is all the "do the crime, do they the time", "I have no pity for this scummy drug dealer" posts from the other thread who's authors showed up here talking about a travesty and tragedy and he shouldn't have to pay. Pp, imo, correctly pointed out some hypocrisy in that. Maybe so. But I think we all have different ideas about which laws are "unjust." I don't think you're necessarily a hypocrite if you advocate for those who run afoul of laws that you believe are unjust, but not those that break others. I don't view those who "support" illegal immigration as hypocrites, or wanting anarchy. I think they're -- for the most part -- good people who want to see our laws in that area changed, and improved. Likewise, I don't hold the plight of a four-time convicted drug dealer in the same regard as I do a father and husband who was cheated on and now has to pay for HER mistakes for the next 18 years. I just don't. I hope my explanation makes sense. But if you still consider me a hypocrite, I can kind of see why. I just respectfully disagree with that reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Maybe hypocrite is the wrong word. Honestly, imo this is the road things have gone down because we're so willing and quick to take people's freedom away for non-violent "offenses" in this country. The problem is there are so many unjust laws in our society but only a few dedicated enough to speak up about it for any particular one. The part I can't understand and never could was a response like "he knew the law, no sympathy here" or "he did the crime now do the time" in reference to someone being LOCKED UP over selling weed. But people have their own biases and we have, as a whole, made it easy to pass off obvious injustices and watch people rot in prison in the name of law and order. I hate that in all cases, not just ones like this where it's so easy to pick his side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Maybe hypocrite is the wrong word. Honestly, imo this is the road things have gone down because we're so willing and quick to take people's freedom away for non-violent "offenses" in this country. The problem is there are so many unjust laws in our society but only a few dedicated enough to speak up about it for any particular one. The part I can't understand and never could was a response like "he knew the law, no sympathy here" or "he did the crime now do the time" in reference to someone being LOCKED UP over selling weed. But people have their own biases and we have, as a whole, made it easy to pass off obvious injustices and watch people rot in prison in the name of law and order. I hate that in all cases, not just ones like this where it's so easy to pick his side. I'm guilty of that myself, but I think you make a great point. And I can certainly admit that I'm very passionate and vocal about the issues that matter to me, while being pretty laissez faire about those that don't. Fortunately, for every hog ****ing on this guy's behalf, there's an ACW supporting the guy in the other thread. As I implied with the Jim Crow comment earlier, most of our "unjust" laws throughout our history have changed with one "regular" person taking a bold stance. And IMO, if you have one that really matters to you (speaking generally, not "you") you absolutely can do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportjunkie07 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 You're twisting the same way he is. The guy is ruining his own life. As much as it sucks, the law is the law and he was ordered to pay. The fact that he prefers to quit multiple jobs and go to jail than pay, for reasons of principle, is not her fault. Or is the rule of law only important when we like the point they're making? Must be because everyone trips over themselves to say how a pot dealer deserves jail because "he broke the law". You can't pick and choose which laws deserve to be ignored, especially if you're a law and order guy on other subjects. Personally my respect for the law is mostly out of fear of jail, I don't have much respect for our justice system at all so I'm completely comfortable with people breaking it. The more it gets undermined the great the chance it will have to get re-examined and drastically changed. im not twisting anything. he doesnt have to go to jail, he could choose to pay alimony. since he hasnt, he's going to jail. i understand that. its a law. i think the law is wrong here and should be changed though. he's not some idiot who got caught selling/having possession of weed 4 times. there is a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 i know right, wasn't there someone on here from florida who was all about setting up some kind of organization to look out for dads/husbands in situations like this? Problem I would see though is what happens if you are not told the whole story and you take sides, like what if it turns out the husband was abusing the wife and that is why she cheated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 He's taking one for the team, I just hope it doesn't go unrewarded in the end for those ahead. Being crapped upon by the court system after already having your heart ripped out is about as bad as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdcskins Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Never love a ho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Marriage, as an institution, really only makes sense (from the full legal/social sense) when it works for men. Women will always find a way to extract resources, whether through prostitution, marriage in the modern OR traditional sense or through voting. Basically, the West destroyed the things that made marriage workable for men and women and took into account their fundamental natures. We've instituted an arrangement that caters to women and children only and that features disincentives for women to act in a way more conducive to marital and social harmony. There used to be severe social penalties for women who had children by another man while married (just as there were for a man who up and left his family altogether.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Marriage, as an institution, really only makes sense (from the full legal/social sense) when it works for men. Women will always find a way to extract resources, whether through prostitution, marriage in the modern OR traditional sense or through voting. Basically, the West destroyed the things that made marriage workable for men and women and took into account their fundamental natures. We've instituted an arrangement that caters to women and children only and that features disincentives for women to act in a way more conducive to marital and social harmony. There used to be severe social penalties for women who had children by another man while married (just as there were for a man who up and left his family altogether.) If this post were a baseball, you'd have hit it so far that it would NEVER be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Yeah, that's the ticket! Let's go back to the good old days of yesteryear when men were masters of all they surveyed and women and children were chattel. No thank you. Women are more than just put on earth to clean up after men. One advantage of being a lesbian is never having to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Yeah, that's the ticket! Let's go back to the good old days of yesteryear when men were masters of all they surveyed and women and children were chattel.No thank you. Women are more than just put on earth to clean up after men. One advantage of being a lesbian is never having to do that. Nonsense, there have been plenty of societies, including our own not that long ago where marriage worked for men, where women were not chattel, had property rights, rights to divorce in certain circumstances. There's a lot more to be said on the subject but let's just say that I am not surprised at the overwrought and factually inaccurate response to a logical argument. I would say try reining in your emotions but that might prove difficult, so instead why not address what was said, instead of list your own associations and prejudices about 'the past.' More importantly, how does having marriage/divorce/custody laws that REFLECT all the changes in our society (which is all I really advocate, I think) treating women as chattel? Your response does nothing for the man in this story, he's a non-person in your eyes I guess, but having laws (the little known fact is, in spite of assumptions to equality, most groups that advocate for women's 'equality' fight against changes to antiquated marriage/divorce laws when it would hinder the woman's ability to extract resources/power/status from the man or the state) that reflect the vast social transformations (good or ill) would at least offer men a better and safer investment in the institution and be better for children and women too. (of course around half those children will grow up to be men, so I don't know why I even made them a separate category really) I wouldn't ask for men to be given the Roman power of paterfamilias, only revising the code or society itself to make the arrangement both equitable to the people involved and constructive on a broader scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Yeah, that's the ticket! Let's go back to the good old days of yesteryear when men were masters of all they surveyed and women and children were chattel.No thank you. Women are more than just put on earth to clean up after men. One advantage of being a lesbian is never having to do that. and what does that have anything to do with what we are talking about? was that just a reason to bring up your sexuality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.