 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / July 2009Narcissism
Narcissism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Narcissism describes the trait of excessive self-love based on self- image or ego, as well as lack of empathy for others. The term is derived from the Greek mythology of Narcissus. Narcissus was a handsome Greek youth who rejected the desperate advances of the nymph Echo. As punishment, he was doomed to fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love, Narcissus pined away and changed into a flower that bears his name, the narcissus. In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit, egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others. > Narcissism > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of > others. Now read dusty's posted response to the Michael Jackson post and see how much of this definition applies there, I'd say all of it except I don't think he is narcissistic as much as he is just stupid and unable to think of anything other than his 'every child left behind' agenda. Nice to see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense postings or attempts to insult me. > Narcissism > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of > others. Now read dusty's posted response to the Michael Jackson post and see how much of this definition applies there, I'd say all of it except I don't think he is narcissistic as much as he is just stupid and unable to think of anything other than his 'every child left behind' agenda. I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how stupiud it is. The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can you apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should be responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that responsibility? That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the plight of others. I don't want to pay because their mother spends the money wahhhh!! The kids are much better off if I contribute nothing at all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks have brought this to your attention before. >> Narcissism >> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > responsible for their own kids and look for any excuse to deny that > responsibility? IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying this pesky lil' fact? > That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the plight of others. I > don't want to pay because their mother spends the money wahhhh!! The kids > are much better off if I contribute nothing at all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about > narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks have brought this to your > attention before. > IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make > the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying > this pesky lil' fact? I am responsible for my kids, not only is it possible but it is easy and rewarding. Most divorced fathers are responsible to and for their children, has anyone told those fathers that 12 deadbeats claim it is impossible to be responsible for their children? BB King has something like 30 kids from 20 different women and even he is responsible when it comes to caring for them. Someone should clue him in before he sends another kid to college, I bet he doesn't think it is impossible. I had a friend who found out that his father wasn't his biological father in high school, when his biological dad found out he had a 16 year old son he offered to pay his college tuition, his real dad refused the offer because it was his responsibility as a father to pay those bills. See how it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All you need to do is grow up and stop whining. >> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make >> the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying >> this pesky lil' fact? > > I am responsible for my kids.. You are nothing of the sort. You are a despicable lowlife who claims to make a 6 figure income and wonders why those that don't make what you claim to make can't afford imputed child support payments. Whenever someone states a fact, you counter with ad homonym attacks and antidotal statements. When pressed to provide factual evidence to back up your claims you deliver with more of the same: ad homonym attacks and (my favorite) "I found it at www.NYT.com, go find it." And whenever someone posts their story of what happened, or is happening to them, you attack them. You are a fraud; a deceiver; a spinner of lies. In short, you are a sociopathic cyber-bully. >>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to >>> make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > make a 6 figure income and wonders why those that don't make what you > claim to make can't afford imputed child support payments. My kids live with me, I pay the bills, I coach their teams, take them to the park .... show me some proof that I am not responsible for them. I can show you some photos of us from this weekend at the beachhouse if that counts as proof. I can also prove to you that I am responsible for them regardless of my income, they are my kids and I would take care of them if I made no money. They are my kids, they have my DNA so I am responsible for them no matter what lame stories you tell me. > Whenever someone states a fact, you counter with ad homonym attacks and > antidotal statements. As do you, except yours make no sense at all. You are just mad that someone called you on your bullshit. Have you proven yet that MJ died a pauper or is that just more bullshit from you? > When pressed to provide factual evidence to back up your claims you > deliver with more of the same: ad homonym attacks and (my favorite) "I > found it at www.NYT.com, go find it." No, I added up the totals from YOUR links and proved that you are a liar. Did you forget that part of the thread deadbeat? Maybe you should review last week's lies and stop trying to dredge up your old lies from 3 months ago. I see you are just trying to preach to the choir with your NY Times reference but try to remember that you were proven wrong by the NYTimes 3 months ago just like you are being proven wrong by your own references now. > And whenever someone posts their story of what happened, or is happening > to them, you attack them. No I don't. I mostly ignore them because I assume that most of what you post is lies, just like your recent MJ post was filled with lies to support your deadbeat agenda. Truth is, whether I attack someone or not, if they are being honest there is nothing vulnerable to attack. In your case there is nothing but vulnerability because you post lies with no substance to support them. > You are a fraud; a deceiver; a spinner of lies. And you have been proven to be a liar who whines when he gets called on it. I noticed that you haven't proven any of my statements to be false yet ... is that because you can't do it? Show me some proof that MJ died a pauper like you claimed. We both know it is a lie but if you can prove it then I will apologize for calling you a whining, lying, piece of sh.t. > In short, you are a sociopathic cyber-bully. Wahhhh, I can't lie to my idiot friends in public without getting called on it anymore ..... wahhhhhhh .... how can I defend my deadbeat position if I can't lie constantly ...... wahhhhhh the big bad bully is calling me on my lies ..... wahhhh. I'd recommend that you ignore me if you can't handle simple logic or questions in response to your lying, whining bullshit. >>>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make >>>> the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > I'd recommend that you ignore me if you can't handle simple logic or > questions in response to your lying, whining bullshit. Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode. >> I'd recommend that you ignore me if you can't handle simple logic or >> questions in response to your lying, whining bullshit. > > Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode. I see, does this mean you will take my advice and ignore my posts or do you plan to continue whining and lying and then trying to insult me when you can't think of a lie that doesn't make you seem like a complete douchebag? Try this simple logic: You claimed that MJ died a pauper in order to back up your own bullshit. I told you that you were wrong. You claimed I was lying and proceeded to post links which showed that his assets exceeded his debt by 800 million dollars. You then followed up by claiming you were correct about him being a pauper. I explained it to you again and you respond with name calling and a complete avoidance of the topic about which you are wrong. You are just a whining, lying crybaby and even if you understand logic you just don't have the sense to try using it. Do you have some proof that I am not responsible for my kids? I'm sure if you did you would have brought it up, no? >>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make >>>>> the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode. XXX criticizing anyone's lack of logic. is just too funny. XXX criticizes those who have been through "family court" for failing to understand and agree with what XXX read about it in the NYTimes. Phil #3 >> Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode. > > XXX criticizing anyone's lack of logic. is just too funny. > XXX criticizes those who have been through "family court" for failing to > understand and agree with what XXX read about it in the NYTimes. > Phil #3 What a pile of bullshit, reread this thread and show me one mention of family court by me. Then show me where or when I used the NY Times as a reference to prove anything about Michael Jackson (the topic you all seem to be lying like crazy in order to avoid btw) This is why I enjoy these threads, you all lie and swear to each other's lies, when you are made fools of you resort to more lies and lying back and forth to each other to assuage your hurt feelings. Dusty is obviously the dumbest of you, I can see why you feel the need to protect him from reality. You seem to be the biggest liar though, does that make you a leader around these trailerparks? >>> Good lord, you couldn't handle simple logic, you're brain would explode. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > reality. You seem to be the biggest liar though, does that make you a > leader around these trailerparks? You poor thing. See what I mean about lack of logic? I'm not talking about this thread necessarily as you show zero logic in every post and I was referring to another of your posts where you used the NYTimes as a reference in regard to family court. You are a sick individual who thrives on insult and accusation. Are you by chance a divorce attorney or perhaps a "family court" judge? If not, you missed your calling. Phil #3 > "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I used the NYTimes as a referference to a phenomenoln in NYC. If I recall the article showed the increase in nyc children over the past 6 years. I could never be a lawyer or judge because it would involve dealing with lowlives, dimwits and liars for my paycheck. I can see how you've had bad luck with the court system though. The only gratifying thing is that you have proven to me that you absolutely got what you deserved from everyone you dealt with. I can see why you need to be insulated by a group of like minded people who will swear to every lie you tell. On Jul 21, 8:58 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I used the NYTimes as a referference to a phenomenoln in NYC. If I recall the article showed the increase in nyc children over the past 6 years. I could never be a lawyer or judge because it would involve dealing with lowlives, dimwits and liars for my paycheck. I can see how you've had bad luck with the court system though. The only gratifying thing is that you have proven to me that you absolutely got what you deserved from everyone you dealt with. I can see why you need to be insulated by a group of like minded people who will swear to every lie you tell. *********** You just made an awful lot of claims. Care to back em'? On Jul 21, 8:58 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I used the NYTimes as a referference to a phenomenoln in NYC. If I recall the article showed the increase in nyc children over the past 6 years. I could never be a lawyer or judge because it would involve dealing with lowlives, dimwits and liars for my paycheck. I can see how you've had bad luck with the court system though. The only gratifying thing is that you have proven to me that you absolutely got what you deserved from everyone you dealt with. I can see why you need to be insulated by a group of like minded people who will swear to every lie you tell. ********************************************* As always, you see exactly what you want to see, which is rarely the truth about anything. Perhaps someday you will mature. Phil #3 > As always, you see exactly what you want to see, which is rarely the truth > about anything. > Perhaps someday you will mature. > Phil #3- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Might happen before you grow up and admit that fathers have responsibilities. On Jul 23, 12:28 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > As always, you see exactly what you want to see, which is rarely the truth > about anything. > Perhaps someday you will mature. > Phil #3- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Might happen before you grow up and admit that fathers have responsibilities. ******************************************************** Yes, their responsibilities are those that the mother and/or the court decides for him, which is what I've been saying all along (that you either don't read of can't understand). Phil #3 > Might happen before you grow up and admit that fathers have > responsibilities. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Phil #3 No they aren't, but thanks for proving conclusively that you not only have no idea what the word means but that you have no intention of ever being a responsible adult. Just a hint, blaming others for your lack of responsibility is a bad habit that I have already broken in my 7 year old. You all prove an old adage, nobody is useless ... its just that sometimes a person's only use is to serve as a bad example. >> Might happen before you grow up and admit that fathers have >> responsibilities. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You all prove an old adage, nobody is useless ... its just that sometimes > a person's only use is to serve as a bad example. Proving yet again that you don't even know what YOU'RE saying, much less what others are. Phil #3 >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to >>>>>> make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > understand and agree with what XXX read about it in the NYTimes. > Phil #3 Which begs the question: Is it true because the NYT says so, and false because it was claimed by an equal rights advocate in this newsgroup; or is the truth value based upon some other measure? >> XXX criticizing anyone's lack of logic. is just too funny. >> XXX criticizes those who have been through "family court" for failing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > an equal rights advocate in this newsgroup; or is the truth value based > upon some other measure? Swearing to lies because you think it helps your own lies makes you seem stupid. >>>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make >>>> the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I made no money. They are my kids, they have my DNA so I am responsible > for them no matter what lame stories you tell me. They have their grandmother's DNA too. >> Whenever someone states a fact, you counter with ad homonym attacks and >> antidotal statements. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > I'd recommend that you ignore me if you can't handle simple logic or > questions in response to your lying, whining bullshit. >> My kids live with me, I pay the bills, I coach their teams, take them >> to the park .... show me some proof that I am not responsible for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They have their grandmother's DNA too. But she isn't the father, isn't responsible for paying their bills, can't coach baseball worth a sh.t and doesn't have the patience to take them to the park, plus we are a white family. >>> My kids live with me, I pay the bills, I coach their teams, take them to >>> the park .... show me some proof that I am not responsible for them. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > But she isn't the father, And he isn't the grandmother. > isn't responsible for paying their bills, can't coach baseball worth a > sh.t and doesn't have the patience to take them to the park, plus we are a > white family. >>> They have their grandmother's DNA too. >> >> But she isn't the father, > > And he isn't the grandmother. Depending on how far south he lives, you can't be sure of that. >> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make >> the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All you need to do is > grow up and stop whining. The problem is this: Only the women involved are allowed to choose whether a pregnancy will result in a child yet you hold men (involved or not) solely responsible for a child's existence if and when she chooses to do so. "Responsibility" is NOT money from a man to a mother; responsibility is being a parent which includes protecting and nurturing them, which is impossible to fully be when not allowed to be with them. For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an ATM for the mother's convenience. Phil #3 >>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to >>> make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > result in a child yet you hold men (involved or not) solely responsible > for a child's existence if and when she chooses to do so. We've been through this before, if a kid slips out with your DNA you are responsible, a concept pretty acceptable to most of the civilized world. And a concept which is written as law in the society you grew up in. You can't claim ignorance in order to change the rules. If we want to avoid that responsibility we have to avoid fertilizing the eggs, after that it is out of our hands. > "Responsibility" is NOT money from a man to a mother; responsibility is > being a parent which includes protecting and nurturing them, which is > impossible to fully be when not allowed to be with them. If you were allowed to abandon them or force them to be aborted would that allow you more time with them? After all this time are you denying the claim that men shouldn't be responsible because they don't have the right to decide? Should the "responsibility" you are talking about be the father's even though he can't terminate a pregnancy? or are you just defining things that have nothing to do with anything else? > For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an > ATM for the mother's convenience. > Phil #3 In some cases, in others the ATM thing works out fine. To be a parent all you have to do is have a child with a woman. The rest seems to be a matter of negotiation. >>>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make >>>> the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > And a concept which is written as law in the society you grew up in. You > can't claim ignorance in order to change the rules. Ignorance has NOTHING to do with it. UNequal protection is why such rules need to be changed. > If we want to avoid that responsibility we have to avoid fertilizing the > eggs, after that it is out of our hands. It was never in their hands in the FIRST place. Unless, of course, you deny the existence of legally imputed fatherhood. >> "Responsibility" is NOT money from a man to a mother; responsibility is >> being a parent which includes protecting and nurturing them, which is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you have to do is have a child with a woman. The rest seems to be a matter > of negotiation. >> We've been through this before, if a kid slips out with your DNA you >> are responsible, a concept pretty acceptable to most of the civilized [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ignorance has NOTHING to do with it. UNequal protection is why such > rules need to be changed. Are you saying that you DO understand that you are responsible for your offspring? > It was never in their hands in the FIRST place. Unless, of course, you > deny the existence of legally imputed fatherhood. I don't deny anything, how you can deny your own responsibility for a pregnancy is mind boggling. That first step is almost always in your hands. >>> We've been through this before, if a kid slips out with your DNA you are >>> responsible, a concept pretty acceptable to most of the civilized world. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > pregnancy is mind boggling. That first step is almost always in your > hands. This discussion is NOT about me. How about staying on topic. >>>> We've been through this before, if a kid slips out with your DNA you >>>> are responsible, a concept pretty acceptable to most of the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > This discussion is NOT about me. How about staying on topic. Okay then, explain to me how michael jackson died a pauper. Here is your 100th chance to refute what I said about the topic of this thread before you all derailed it rather than admit one of your clan was making sh.t up. >>>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make >>>> the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > that responsibility we have to avoid fertilizing the eggs, after that it > is out of our hands. Yes, we've been through it before and you STILL fail to learn. You think you know the answer even before the question is asked. DNA does NOT have to match in order for a man to be respoonsible to pay a woman for her unilateral decision to give birth but you knew that, or at least SHOULD know it, you've been told enough. >> "Responsibility" is NOT money from a man to a mother; responsibility is >> being a parent which includes protecting and nurturing them, which is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > father's even though he can't terminate a pregnancy? or are you just > defining things that have nothing to do with anything else? What? That makes abzero sense. >> For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an >> ATM for the mother's convenience. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you have to do is have a child with a woman. The rest seems to be a matter > of negotiation. For mothers the ATM thing works very well. For the father, society and the children it blows big baby chunks. Phil #3 > Yes, we've been through it before and you STILL fail to learn. You think you > know the answer even before the question is asked. There is nothing I want to learn from the likes of you, thanks. If you can deny responsibility for your own kids for whatever the reason, please keep your teaching to yourself forever. > DNA does NOT have to match in order for a man to be respoonsible to pay a > woman for her unilateral decision to give birth but you knew that, or at > least SHOULD know it, you've been told enough. Strawman, nice try. If you have a kid you have responsibility for him. Regurgitate your bullshit as much as you want, it won't make me agree that you aren't responsible for your own kids. As you see none of your deadbeat arguments sway me from that simple truth. > > If you were allowed to abandon them or force them to be aborted would that > > allow you more time with them? After all this time are you denying the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What? That makes abzero sense. Then take 3rd grade over again, I'm not here to educate you, just irritate you with facts and the truth. > >> For men to be a parent, they must be allowed to be a full parent, not an > >> ATM for the mother's convenience. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > children it blows big baby chunks. > Phil #3 For some fathers it works out great, single life with kids every other weekend, just because you are obsessed with money and married a woman as trashy and dishonest as yourself doesn't mean that it is the standard. I'd even guess that among non lowlives it is an ideal arrangement. > "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - My goodness, you lot are a bunch of cry0-babies. For all the bitching being done, at least ONE of you colud have filed the paperwork to get visitation. You all cry that you're broke, so haul your a.s to the legal aid office and let them help you get more time with your kids, instead of you complaining about what a victim of the system you are. Cry because of money, yet call the mothers greedy. The nerve! I just wonder how long before you all just start monitoring this group so you can manipulate it to oonly reflect your bullshit views. On Jul 15, 9:27 am, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - My goodness, you lot are a bunch of cry0-babies. For all the bitching being done, at least ONE of you colud have filed the paperwork to get visitation. You all cry that you're broke, so haul your a.s to the legal aid office and let them help you get more time with your kids, instead of you complaining about what a victim of the system you are. Cry because of money, yet call the mothers greedy. The nerve! *********** What would YOU call someone who tries to get as much UNEARNED money as possible? ************ I just wonder how long before you all just start monitoring this group so you can manipulate it to oonly reflect your bullshit views. On Jul 15, 9:27 am, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - My goodness, you lot are a bunch of cry0-babies. For all the bitching being done, at least ONE of you colud have filed the paperwork to get visitation. You all cry that you're broke, so haul your a.s to the legal aid office and let them help you get more time with your kids, instead of you complaining about what a victim of the system you are. Cry because of money, yet call the mothers greedy. The nerve! I just wonder how long before you all just start monitoring this group so you can manipulate it to oonly reflect your bullshit views. ====== Another misguided piece of advise from someone who doesn't understand the CS system. Filing for visitation does not reduce CS. The CS guidelines are set based on the assumption the child(ren) are with the CP 100% of the time. Gaining visitation increases the NCP's expenditures because the cost of visitation is in addition to the CS order. Even the new "parenting plans" are not NCP-friendly. Most states have a threshold before CS amounts begin to reduce as parenting increases. Most states requires the NCP to parent in excess of 30% of the time before any CS order is reduced. [snip] My goodness, you lot are a bunch of cry0-babies. For all the bitching being done, at least ONE of you colud have filed the paperwork to get visitation. You all cry that you're broke, so haul your a.s to the legal aid office and let them help you get more time with your kids, instead of you complaining about what a victim of the system you are. Cry because of money, yet call the mothers greedy. The nerve! I just wonder how long before you all just start monitoring this group so you can manipulate it to oonly reflect your bullshit views. ----------------------------------------- I can't wait for your divorce. On Jul 15, 9:27 am, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - My goodness, you lot are a bunch of cry0-babies. For all the bitching being done, at least ONE of you colud have filed the paperwork to get visitation. You all cry that you're broke, so haul your a.s to the legal aid office and let them help you get more time with your kids, instead of you complaining about what a victim of the system you are. Cry because of money, yet call the mothers greedy. The nerve! I just wonder how long before you all just start monitoring this group so you can manipulate it to oonly reflect your bullshit views. ************************************************** Crawl back under your rock since you've just proven you know jack-sh.t about anything, especially anyting about those posting here. Phil #3 >> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make >> the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > it IS possible to take responsibility for your kids? All you need to do is > grow up and stop whining. The "responsibility" to which you refer is simply paying money to some woman. ANYONE can do that! Not the responsibility I am talking about. I am referring to the CONCEPT of responsibility; not some action. Apples and oranges. If I take a match to your house and burn it to the ground, I am "responsible" for the pile of ashes which is a state of being, NOT an action. >>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make >>> the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "responsible" for the pile of ashes which is a state of being, NOT an > action. Responsibility as used in the CS system is really a code word for compulsory participation. The sad truth is the only way the government can dictate responsibility is to tax something or force inclusion into their programs. >>>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make >>>> the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Responsibility as used in the CS system is really a code word for > compulsory participation. Yup. And such participation is about NOT raising the children. > The sad truth is the only way the government can dictate responsibility is > to tax something or force inclusion into their programs. Which brings to light the two different applications of "responsibility". If the concept of responsibility is absent, then all other forms of responsibility are non-existent. It simply follows. Of course you're always gonna get the die-hard yoyos who say "they have your DNA". Well guess what, they also have the DNA of their grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents, etc.. What the heck is THAT supposed to mean? >>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to >>> make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The "responsibility" to which you refer is simply paying money to some > woman. None of what I posted above can be characterized as paying money to some woman. Each example was an example of a person accepting responsibility for his own kids, (a responsibility that exists whether the guy accepts it or not btw)I defy you to back up that stupid lie. > ANYONE can do that! Not the responsibility I am talking about. I > am referring to the CONCEPT of responsibility; not some action. Exactly what my post described, none of the examples are examples of just paying money to some woman. > Apples > and oranges. If I take a match to your house and burn it to the ground, > I am "responsible" for the pile of ashes which is a state of being, NOT > an action. You are not responsible for the pile of ashes, either I or my insurance company is. You are only responsible for the crime of arson and the damage, legally and morally. Again, you just don't make any sense. >>>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make >>>> the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > for his own kids, (a responsibility that exists whether the guy accepts it > or not btw)I defy you to back up that stupid lie. The problem you seem to want to ignore is the divorced, separated, or never married father has the responsibility for children that you describe removed from him in almost every case. In it's place the responsibility to parent effectively is replaced with a newly defined responsibility to pay money. Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are done against the stated desires of most fathers, the courts rub the new arrangement in by claiming the fathers new role is the "duty to support" and in any disputes the judges tell fathers they "agreed" to their new role. Reality is 180 degrees from the court's characterization of these changes. >>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to >>>>> make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > responsibility to parent effectively is replaced with a newly defined > responsibility to pay money. Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only the woman can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be responsible. > Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give > them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > role. Reality is 180 degrees from the court's characterization of these > changes. None of the examples I mentioned involved family court. >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to >>>>>> make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only the woman > can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be responsible. What pretzel logic. The responsibility is there but the responsibility is removed, so it's not impossible to be responsible. Huh? >> Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give >> them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are done [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > None of the examples I mentioned involved family court. Then your examples are all off topic. This is a newsgroup about child support and child support is set by family courts. >> Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed >> then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What pretzel logic. The responsibility is there but the responsibility > is removed, so it's not impossible to be responsible. Huh? What a blatant and purposeful misreading of a simple statement. If you claim that responsibility was taken away, then you have to admit that the responsibility was yours to begin with. So you cannot claim that it isn't your responsibility because (insert nitwit excuse here). If you never owned a Monet and you get robbed, could you claim the loss of a Monet with the police and your insurance company? >>> Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give >>> them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This is a newsgroup about child support and child support is set by > family courts. Sorry mister netcop. Did you complain when someone made posts about michael jackson or were they okay because they weren't at odds with your little support group's ideas that everything should be blamed on other people and that nothing is your responsibility. In case you are really lying and not just trying to make more empty off topic declarations here is what this newsgroup is about .... Activity Low - 93 recent authors Description Raising children in a split family. Language English Categories Other Access Public - Usenet Notice the descrition there? It seems my examples are much closer to the topic than any of your whining posts. While you post about judges and how the system is at fault, my posts actually have some resemblance to the stated description of the group. All of my examples were examples of raising children in split families, none of yours were. You might also notice the fact that it is a public newsgroup, which means you have no say in what is on or off topic and your bullshit about me being off topic is just that. >>> Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed >>> then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > owned a Monet and you get robbed, could you claim the loss of a Monet with > the police and your insurance company? The problem you have is you have assumed every poster here fits your stereotype image. In my case, two children were conceived and born while I was married. I was responsible for helping to create those two children. What changed was the court stipped my parental responsibilities from me. Now to your point that responsibility can go on. I agree with that. Even though I was designated the NCP I continued to act as if I was the CP. My actions really pissed off my ex. In fact she threaten to go to the court to complain about my ongoing parenting involvement. When I told her she would look foolish claiming I was being too good of a parent she backed off. >>>> Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give >>>> them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Categories Other > Access Public - Usenet We've had that quoted to us before. Do you have a cite for where you got that information? It dates back to some usenet requirement to establish a group charter and description over 20 years ago. It is not valid today. This group has been about CS/family law/custody/spousal support issues since I arrived in the late 90's. We have had lots of CP mothers come in here expecting sympathy for their positions only to find there are men here who have a fathers' perspective on those issues. > Notice the descrition there? It seems my examples are much closer to the > topic than any of your whining posts. While you post about judges and how [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you have no say in what is on or off topic and your bullshit about me > being off topic is just that. Well if you have been reading the posts you should have a pretty good idea the Usenet description of this newsgroup and what goes on here are out of sync. >>>> Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is >>>> removed then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The problem you have is you have assumed every poster here fits your > stereotype image. But obviously my problem isn't logic or just making things up to protect an agenda, I take it you understand the above point about responsibility now. > In my case, two children were conceived and born while I was married. I > was responsible for helping to create those two children. What changed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > told her she would look foolish claiming I was being too good of a > parent she backed off. So your problem is the money and the ex, not the fact that you are responsible for your kids. The fact that you continued to act as a parent means that the court didn't strip your responsibilities from you. My ongoing argument here is that you should not (morally) and cannot (legally) deny your responsibility for your kids no matter what extra choices women have, how bad judges are or how much the liberals torment you. >> Sorry mister netcop. Did you complain when someone made posts about >> michael jackson or were they okay because they weren't at odds with [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > mothers come in here expecting sympathy for their positions only to find > there are men here who have a fathers' perspective on those issues. And you are entitled to them, you are not entitled to tell people what they can and can't post about here. Especially when your posts are by the description of the group farther off topic than any single mom's or political kook's. Just trying to hijack a newsgroup with your opinions doesn't make your opinions correct or the newsgroup yours. I've advised all of you before, if you don't like what I have to say, feel free to ignore me, argue with me or wet your pants. You can't stop me from posting and just because the 4 or 12 of you have been sitting around agreeing with each other blindly for 20 years doesn't make this your forum. If you want to avoid outside opinions get your own moderated group or a private group somewhere. >> Notice the descrition there? It seems my examples are much closer to >> the topic than any of your whining posts. While you post about judges [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > idea the Usenet description of this newsgroup and what goes on here are > out of sync. So if you want a forum where no dissenting opinions can be seen, find a private one where you can restrict content to pre approved opinions. Just because YOU all post about judges and money doesn't mean others can't post about the described topic of the newsgroup. Maybe you should be chastising the crossposters who attract the interest of people who disagree with your mission. Without the crossposts I doubt I would have ever found this usenet bizarro world. >>>>> Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed >>>>> then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > and just because the 4 or 12 of you have been sitting around agreeing with > each other blindly for 20 years Untrue. > doesn't make this your forum. If you want to avoid outside opinions get > your own moderated group or a private group somewhere. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > because YOU all post about judges and money doesn't mean others can't post > about the described topic of the newsgroup. You have it backwards. Judges and money is at the HEART of "child support". > Maybe you should be chastising the crossposters who attract the interest > of people who disagree with your mission. Without the crossposts I doubt I > would have ever found this usenet bizarro world. > > And you are entitled to them, you are not entitled to tell people what > > they can and can't post about here. Especially when your posts are by the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Untrue. Perfectly true and accurate despite your wishes and beliefs. Sorry to break it to you. > > So if you want a forum where no dissenting opinions can be seen, find a > > private one where you can restrict content to pre approved opinions. Just > > because YOU all post about judges and money doesn't mean others can't post > > about the described topic of the newsgroup. > > You have it backwards. Judges and money is at the HEART of "child support". To you obviously, to most of the world this isn't the case and you are backwards and just irresponsible. On Jul 19, 12:31 am, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote: > > And you are entitled to them, you are not entitled to tell people what > > they can and can't post about here. Especially when your posts are by [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Untrue. Perfectly true and accurate despite your wishes and beliefs. *********** Uhuh, and the sun rises in the west too. *********** Sorry to break it to you. > > So if you want a forum where no dissenting opinions can be seen, find a > > private one where you can restrict content to pre approved opinions. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You have it backwards. Judges and money is at the HEART of "child > support". To you obviously, to most of the world this isn't the case ************ When did you take a poll? *********** and you are backwards and just irresponsible. ************* What, exactly, makes me irresponsible? >>>>> Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed >>>>> then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > an agenda, I take it you understand the above point about responsibility > now. In a split family there are many downsides to a father's responsibility. Fathers have to look past these negative consequences and just accept them as reality. A few for you to consider are: 1. Mothers have a pro-rata share of each CS order they are expected to pay. There is no accounting for their share of the money being spent. There is no accounting for the money provided by a responsible father to be actually spent on his children. 2. Mothers who like to "party" can easily treat a responsible father as her "weekend babysitter". Fathers who accept the role of responsible parenting are more than willing to take the children for visitation extra time. 3. CP mothers have legal standing to make all decisions regarding children's living arrangements, healthcare treatments, education requirements, and religious training. Responsible fathers have to violate court orders when mothers fail to accept their legal responsibilities as being important. 4. Mothers can play games with father visitation rights and use parental alienation techniques to make it appear responsible fathers don't care about their children. NCP fathers have no legal way to stop the father "push out" games that make then appear to be not responsible. 5. In some cases, mothers have no financial responsibility for their children. And responsible fathers who pay their CS don't see it go to provide for their children because the money paid is diverted to state and federal reimbursements of public benefits money. 6. Mothers who have had children with more than one father can easily add a responsible father's CS into the family budget. This action forces a responsible father to provide for another man's children. >>>>>> Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed >>>>>> then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > court orders when mothers fail to accept their legal responsibilities as > being important. Which absolutely cracks me up when the court people say "joint legal custody". What the heck does THAT mean? > 4. Mothers can play games with father visitation rights and use parental > alienation techniques to make it appear responsible fathers don't care > about their children. NCP fathers have no legal way to stop the father > "push out" games that make then appear to be not responsible. The most popular one being "the child is too sick to have their weekend visit". Imagine if the father said the same thing when it is time to transfer the child to the mother. He would be arrested in a New York minute! And then, of course, there's the "he abused the children"; AUTOMATIC restraining order. But let the father make the same accusation against the mother. They'd laugh him outta court. > 5. In some cases, mothers have no financial responsibility for their > children. And responsible fathers who pay their CS don't see it go to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a responsible father's CS into the family budget. This action forces a > responsible father to provide for another man's children. And the beat goes on............ > > 6. Mothers who have had children with more than one father can easily add > > a responsible father's CS into the family budget. This action forces a > > responsible father to provide for another man's children. > > And the beat goes on............ Maybe you can just marry each other's exes and sort the kids among you so that you each trade equal checks back and forth each month. > In a split family there are many downsides to a father's responsibility. > Fathers have to look past these negative consequences and just accept them > as reality. A few for you to consider are: And there are a few downsides to the mother's responsibility. Now maybe you can explain to the rest here that fathers DO in fact have responsibility for their kids, even if their ex refused to abort them. On Jul 19, 8:34 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote: > In a split family there are many downsides to a father's responsibility. > Fathers have to look past these negative consequences and just accept them > as reality. A few for you to consider are: And there are a few downsides to the mother's responsibility. Now maybe you can explain to the rest here that fathers DO in fact have responsibility for their kids, even if their ex refused to abort them. ====== Intentional unwed childbirths have two levels of responsibility. The mothers have full responsibility for their decisions to go through with childbirth and full responsibility for not using adoption as an option. All of the post-conception responsibilities are under the direct control of the mother. Fathers have a secondary level of responsibility that is assigned to them legally by a court order. There are three ways in which a father can be assigned this responsibility - Signing a voluntary declaration of paternity (which can be revoked within one year), having a positive DNA test, or by judicial fiat in a filiation hearing. Married fathers go into fatherhood with an expectation of their responsibility to their children. When their spouses unilaterally file for divorce over the father's objections, the father's responsibility changes to the same responsibility assigned by the courts in an intentional unwed childbirth case. The mother controls the father's responsibility in these cases. The term "responsibility" is a code word for involuntary participation to transfer money to the mother which she may or may not use to provide for the father's children. The legal definition of responsibility is the "duty of support" which means provide money in the amount specified by the court. Parenting is not normally included in this type of responsibility. In some circumstances, men can be held responsible for children that are not related to them biologically. A couple of examples are the "assumption" a married man is the father of any children born while he is living with his wife, and cases where DNA testing is done too late or declarations of paternity are found to be signed under relationship pressures. >>>> Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed >>>> then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > since I arrived in the late 90's. We have had lots of CP mothers come in > here expecting sympathy for their positions Mainly that of "I am not getting enough FREE money". > only to find there are men here who have a fathers' perspective on those > issues. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the Usenet description of this newsgroup and what goes on here are out of > sync. >>> Not in the examples I mentioned, and if the responsibility is removed >>> then obviously it is there in the first place. So fathers do have that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > owned a Monet and you get robbed, could you claim the loss of a Monet with > the police and your insurance company? What we have here is a failure to communicate. Clearly, TWO different kinds of "responsibilities" are being discussed. Hence the confusion. If you want to educate yourself, do some research on any "child support" system and you will quickly learn that the ONLY legal "responsibility" (meaning obligation) of a legally imputed "father" is that of paying money to some woman........ PERIOD. >>>> Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give >>>> them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > little support group's ideas that everything should be blamed on other > people and that nothing is your responsibility. What "little support" group are you referring to? > In case you are really lying and not just trying to make more empty off > topic declarations here is what this newsgroup is about .... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > stated description of the group. All of my examples were examples of > raising children in split families, none of yours were. Equivocation. This forum has always been about the "child support" industry; NOT the raising of any child. Do yourself a favor and search "child support" on the internet. Then get back with the results. [My personal favorite is "child support 'enforcement'". Guess they're really cracking down on those who refuse to raise a child.] > You might also notice the fact that it is a public newsgroup, which means > you have no say in what is on or off topic and your bullshit about me > being off topic is just that. > What we have here is a failure to communicate. Clearly, TWO different kinds > of "responsibilities" are being discussed. Hence the confusion. If you want > to educate yourself, do some research on any "child support" system and you > will quickly learn that the ONLY legal "responsibility" (meaning obligation) > of a legally imputed "father" is that of paying money to some woman........ > PERIOD. And you are in this group denying both kinds (actually all) when you claim that you should have no responsibility when you can't decide the fate of the fetus before birth, as if that silliness absolves you of any type of responsibility. This sort of approach to children and child support is very likely a contributing factor towards the draconian nature of the child support system. > What "little support" group are you referring to? THis one where you all agree with each other no matter how stupid the argument and logic is. Then change the subject when one of your fellow supportees makes a fool of himself. > Equivocation. This forum has always been about the "child support" industry; > NOT the raising of any child. Do yourself a favor and search "child support" > on the internet. Then get back with the results. Since you claim to have no responsibility towards a kid you can't abort or walk away from, of course it has nothing to do with raising a child. For you it is about not paying money, even if you have to deny all of your instincts and responsibilities to do it. For others this is not the case. Some people actually support their children willingly. On Jul 19, 12:44 am, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote: > What we have here is a failure to communicate. Clearly, TWO different > kinds [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > woman........ > PERIOD. And you are in this group denying both kinds ************ Quite the contrary. I have been promoting cause and effect responsibility and clearly explained BOTH kinds. ********* (actually all) when you claim that you should have no responsibility when you can't decide the fate of the fetus before birth, as if that silliness absolves you of any type of responsibility. ********** I NEVER claimed that one should have no responsibility. I said that responsibility is lacking because the CHOICE is lacking. ********** This sort of approach to children and child support is very likely a contributing factor towards the draconian nature of the child support system. ********* Guess again. GREED (of the "child support" people) is the ONLY contributing factor! ********* > What "little support" group are you referring to? THis one where you all agree with each other no matter how stupid the argument and logic is. Then change the subject when one of your fellow supportees makes a fool of himself. *********** I don't do that; therefore, your claim is false. *********** > Equivocation. This forum has always been about the "child support" > industry; > NOT the raising of any child. Do yourself a favor and search "child > support" > on the internet. Then get back with the results. Since you claim to have no responsibility towards a kid you can't abort or walk away from, of course it has nothing to do with raising a child. ************* Correction: It has nothing to do with raising a child because it is about "child support". Did you do your internet search yet? ************* For you it is about not paying money, even if you have to deny all of your instincts and responsibilities to do it. *********** Untrue. ********** For others this is not the case. Some people actually support their children willingly. ********** Those who are not legally prohibited from doing so. Your point? >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to >>>>>> make the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > responsibility for their offspring despite the fact that "only the woman > can decide." Therefore it is not impossible to to be responsible. Two different questions: 1) Who is responsible for a birth (not pregnancy; for that both adults are obviously responsible)? 2) Who is responsible for the actual support of children (not limited to money, especially that given to a parent in the hopes it will trickle down to the children)? >> Family courts routinely remove fathers from active parenting and give >> them a new responsibility to provide money. Although these acts are done [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > None of the examples I mentioned involved family court. What about in real life as it occurs in courts across America daily? Phil #3 > Two different questions: > 1) Who is responsible for a birth (not pregnancy; for that both adults are > obviously responsible)? Both parents. > 2) Who is responsible for the actual support of children (not limited to > money, especially that given to a parent in the hopes it will trickle down > to the children)? Both parents. > > None of the examples I mentioned involved family court. > > What about in real life as it occurs in courts across America daily? > Phil #3- Hide quoted text - Read my examples, they all occurred in America, the US specifically. BB King is my favorite of those examples though. On Jul 21, 9:13 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > Two different questions: > 1) Who is responsible for a birth (not pregnancy; for that both adults are > obviously responsible)? Both parents. ***************************************************** Wrong-o but you knew that. Only a pregnant woman can decide if a pregnancy will result in abortion or childbirth. That's the ruling from the SCOTUS back in 1979. *************************************************** > 2) Who is responsible for the actual support of children (not limited to > money, especially that given to a parent in the hopes it will trickle down > to the children)? Both parents. **************************************************** True in an intact family only. ************************************************** > > None of the examples I mentioned involved family court. > > What about in real life as it occurs in courts across America daily? > Phil #3- Hide quoted text - Read my examples, they all occurred in America, the US specifically. BB King is my favorite of those examples though. ************************************************** What about people who work regular jobs and make less than $300,000/year? Phil #3 > > Two different questions: > > 1) Who is responsible for a birth (not pregnancy; for that both adults are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > will result in abortion or childbirth. > That's the ruling from the SCOTUS back in 1979. Doesn't mean the father isn't still responsible, its still his future kid. > > 2) Who is responsible for the actual support of children (not limited to > > money, especially that given to a parent in the hopes it will trickle down [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > True in an intact family only. True always, both parents are responsible for their offspring. No amount of lying changes that. > > > None of the examples I mentioned involved family court. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What about people who work regular jobs and make less than $300,000/year? > Phil #3 They pay less and usually have fewer kids but they are still responsible. On Jul 21, 9:48 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > Two different questions: > > 1) Who is responsible for a birth (not pregnancy; for that both adults [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will result in abortion or childbirth. > That's the ruling from the SCOTUS back in 1979. Doesn't mean the father isn't still responsible, its still his future kid. ************************************************************ ************************************************************ According to the law, he has neither responsibility nor options for or about the unborn child until after the child is born. If you have different information, I'd love to see it. ******************************************************* ****************************************************** > > 2) Who is responsible for the actual support of children (not limited to > > money, especially that given to a parent in the hopes it will trickle [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > True in an intact family only. True always, both parents are responsible for their offspring. No amount of lying changes that. **************************************************** **************************************************** Correct, your lying doesn't change the fact that outside marriage, fathers have a responsibility to pay the mother but fails to mandate how the money is to be used, thereby rendering the money a payment for the choice only the mother can make. He has no further legal obligations (responsibility) or options (rights) unless he has funding enough to seek a court order allowing more options, which is usually denied above a few days "visitation" per month. The mother is liable to only see that the children are given legally minimum food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc., regardless the amount of her income from child support. In fact, she is under NO obligation whatever to provide for the children at all as long as they are minimally cared for and regardless who actually spends the money to do so. **************************************************** **************************************************** > > > None of the examples I mentioned involved family court. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What about people who work regular jobs and make less than $300,000/year? > Phil #3 They pay less and usually have fewer kids but they are still responsible. ********************************************* ********************************************** How so? What specific "responsibilities" do divorced or never-married fathers have toward their children other than paying the mother? Phil #3 > According to the law, he has neither responsibility nor options for or about > the unborn child until after the child is born. > If you have different information, I'd love to see it. according to jews muslims christians and anyone in the world claiming moral authority, he is responsible. Since the kid is still in a woman's body he has as much legal responsibility for it as he would have for one of her kidneys. He can't force her into any decisions about the fetus. Once the kid makes it into the world, its father has legal and moral responsibility. > Correct, your lying doesn't change the fact that outside marriage, fathers > have a responsibility to pay the mother but fails to mandate how the money > is to be used, thereby rendering the money a payment for the choice only the > mother can make. He has no further legal obligations (responsibility) or 't > options (rights) unless he has funding enough to seek a court order allowing > more options, which is usually denied above a few days "visitation" per > month. The mother is liable to only see that the children are given legally [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > **************************************************** > **************************************************** They have those legal responsibilities plus his parenting responsibilities. Same as with the pregnancy, just because the mother has more options doesn't mean the father is absolved of his responsibility. > > > > None of the examples I mentioned involved family court. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Phil #3 Paying the child support is the minimum for people who want to be absolved of their responsibilities, those who don't can share a million other responsibilities with you. A few of those can be found in the examples I provided. On Jul 22, 6:46 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > According to the law, he has neither responsibility nor options for or > about > the unborn child until after the child is born. > If you have different information, I'd love to see it. according to jews muslims christians and anyone in the world claiming moral authority, he is responsible. Since the kid is still in a woman's body he has as much legal responsibility for it as he would have for one of her kidneys. He can't force her into any decisions about the fetus. Once the kid makes it into the world, its father has legal and moral responsibility. ****************************************** ****************************************** ****************************************** So now you want to make religion synonymous with law. Not surprising. Legal and moral responsibilities are not at all the same thing nor does one need to be religious to have morals however one can be legal without being moral and visa versa. I think perhaps your basic problem is that you have to have everything compartmentalized and in agreement with your basic desires in order to make sense of the world. That's a shame. Individual thought is very liberating. ***************************************** ***************************************** ***************************************** > Correct, your lying doesn't change the fact that outside marriage, fathers > have a responsibility to pay the mother but fails to mandate how the money > is to be used, thereby rendering the money a payment for the choice only > the > mother can make. He has no further legal obligations (responsibility) or 't > options (rights) unless he has funding enough to seek a court order allowing > more options, which is usually denied above a few days "visitation" per > month. The mother is liable to only see that the children are given [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > **************************************************** > **************************************************** They have those legal responsibilities plus his parenting responsibilities. Same as with the pregnancy, just because the mother has more options doesn't mean the father is absolved of his responsibility. ************************************************ ************************************************ ************************************************ So you're saying that a mother's ability to abort, abandon or use a child as a means to a paycheck is "responsible" and moral while at the same time a father doing the same thing is immoral and irresponsible. How very sexist of you. ************************************************ ************************************************ *********************************************** > > > > None of the examples I mentioned involved family court. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Phil #3 Paying the child support is the minimum for people who want to be absolved of their responsibilities, those who don't can share a million other responsibilities with you. A few of those can be found in the examples I provided. *************************************************** *************************************************** *************************************************** Bullshit in spades. Allowing a parent to be a full and equal patrent is the minimum. Forcing a man away from his children without cause and beign forced to provide money because the other parent demand it is pure unadulterated sexism. **************************************************** **************************************************** *************************************************** Phil #3 > So now you want to make religion synonymous with law. Not surprising. Your strawman aside, I have made the distinction between legal and moral responsibility from the start. The law usually steps in when your morals and decency fall short or don't exist in the first place. > Legal and moral responsibilities are not at all the same thing nor does one > need to be religious to have morals however one can be legal without being > moral and visa versa. I've been making the distinction from the beginning, you liars all play the same dishonest game ... if someone mentions the legal responsibility harp on the non legal, if anyone mentions the other than legal responsibilities for your kids, go back to the legal argument. We both know it is bullshit and a simple minded way for a group of liars to stick to pre approved agenda. > I think perhaps your basic problem is that you have to have everything > compartmentalized and in agreement with your basic desires in order to make > sense of the world. > That's a shame. Individual thought is very liberating. Unlike you dirty dozen deadbeats, I express my own ideas and call bullshit when I see it. > So you're saying that a mother's ability to abort, abandon or use a child as > a means to a paycheck is "responsible" and moral while at the same time a > father doing the same thing is immoral and irresponsible. > How very sexist of you. Nice strawman, how long did it take you devise this stupid lie? I say, as I have from the beginning, that father's have responsibility despite the fact that women have more options. If you don't pay your bills does that make it okay for me not to pay my bills? When the sherrif shows up can I tell him that I shouldn't be responsible because of how someone else acts? The fact that you pass this stupidity off as an argument shows how fitting the deadbeat moniker is for you. The fact that none of the other idiots here will call you on this simpleton's attempt at an argument shows how correct I am in my description of your m.o. > Bullshit in spades. Allowing a parent to be a full and equal patrent is the > minimum. Show me how "allowing you be a full ...." is your responsibility. The minimum required of a father, hence his minimum responsibility is to pay his child support. > Forcing a man away from his children without cause and beign forced > to provide money because the other parent demand it is pure unadulterated > sexism. Again you prove that you have no idea what the word means. Thanks for making it so obvious this time. On Jul 23, 12:42 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > So now you want to make religion synonymous with law. Not surprising. Your strawman aside, I have made the distinction between legal and moral responsibility from the start. The law usually steps in when your morals and decency fall short or don't exist in the first place. ***************************************************** Bullshit. The law steps in to allow the major religions a method of forcing everyone, even the non-believers or those of a different faith, into observing the religious doctrines of the most dominant. An example would be the cities/states/counties that forbid selling alcohol on Sunday or other restrictions. Or when I was a boy, the "blue laws" that made working on Sunday a misdemeanor ("necessary" employment (police, doctors, etc.) were exempt, which was just more hypocrisy. > Legal and moral responsibilities are not at all the same thing nor does > one > need to be religious to have morals however one can be legal without being > moral and visa versa. I've been making the distinction from the beginning, you liars all play the same dishonest game ... if someone mentions the legal responsibility harp on the non legal, if anyone mentions the other than legal responsibilities for your kids, go back to the legal argument. We both know it is bullshit and a simple minded way for a group of liars to stick to pre approved agenda. ********************************************************* Obviously, reading comprehension is not one of your abilities. You read what you like into other's statements, believe everyone that disagrees with your prejudiced and jaundiced viewpoint is a liar. Got it. In other words, you're still full of sh.t and spewing nothing but insults in place of facts because you can't handle the truth. Sadly, there's no way to educate the intentionally ignorant. ********************************************************* > I think perhaps your basic problem is that you have to have everything > compartmentalized and in agreement with your basic desires in order to > make > sense of the world. > That's a shame. Individual thought is very liberating. Unlike you dirty dozen deadbeats, I express my own ideas and call bullshit when I see it. ****************************************************** ****************************************************** ******************************************************* You lable me a "deadbeat" because....???????? Because I don't agree with your prejudicial viewpoint that men should give money to women because..., well, just because? **************************************************** **************************************************** *************************************************** > So you're saying that a mother's ability to abort, abandon or use a child > as > a means to a paycheck is "responsible" and moral while at the same time a > father doing the same thing is immoral and irresponsible. > How very sexist of you. Nice strawman, how long did it take you devise this stupid lie? I say, as I have from the beginning, that father's have responsibility despite the fact that women have more options. If you don't pay your bills does that make it okay for me not to pay my bills? When the sherrif shows up can I tell him that I shouldn't be responsible because of how someone else acts? The fact that you pass this stupidity off as an argument shows how fitting the deadbeat moniker is for you. The fact that none of the other idiots here will call you on this simpleton's attempt at an argument shows how correct I am in my description of your m.o. ************************************************************** ************************************************************ Point out the lie. Once again, you can't back up your statements as usual because it isn't a lie and you damned well know it, you simple-minded ass-wipe You just have nothing else to say except to call "lie" and run for cover. *********************************************************************** *********************************************************************** > Bullshit in spades. Allowing a parent to be a full and equal patrent is > the > minimum. Show me how "allowing you be a full ...." is your responsibility. The minimum required of a father, hence his minimum responsibility is to pay his child support. **************************************************** Just when I think you've been as stupid as possible, you go one step beyond. **************************************************** > Forcing a man away from his children without cause and beign forced > to provide money because the other parent demand it is pure unadulterated > sexism. Again you prove that you have no idea what the word means. Thanks for making it so obvious this time. ****************************************************** What is obvious is that men paying women because of the sex of each is your opinion of "responsibile". All you've proven is that you're a dumb son-of-a-bitch. Phil #3 > Your strawman aside, I have made the distinction between legal and > moral responsibility from the start. The law usually steps in when [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > made working on Sunday a misdemeanor ("necessary" employment (police, > doctors, etc.) were exempt, which was just more hypocrisy. So who do you blame for being raised a hillbilly? I was raised a hillbilly, I play banjo, I can make myself a decent pair of overalls from leftover jobsite canvas, I can turn a garbage disposal or dumped lawnmower into a pretty good minibike engine, I can make running shoes from old tires I even helped my uncle install an old bus engine into his fishing boat. I never had much time for religions, but I never blamed them when I couldn't buy beer/oil/tires on a sunday, I have no quarrel with the law of the land. I got through college fixing brakes on my classmates' cars and handing wrenches to Trailways bus mechanics so their busses could make it to ski trips. I showed up in class every day covered in grease but I never once blamed my situation on anyone. I never had any idea that I had anything to blame on anyone, I did my thing, accepted responsibility for my own tuition and never found anyone to blame. In fact I felt sorry for the kids who got stranded because their car's oil light came on, I couldn't believe how helpless people allow themselves to be. > ********************************************************* > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > insults in place of facts because you can't handle the truth. Sadly, > there's no way to educate the intentionally ignorant. Nobody needs to read into anything you say, you are arguing against child support and responsibility and arguing for anything promoted by your little girlie cabal. I see you still can't address the whole MJ died a pauper thing. Not a problem, your MO is as apparent as it is transparent. > You lable me a "deadbeat" because....???????? Because you support the deadbeat agenda and because your rhetoric is worthless. > Because I don't agree with your prejudicial viewpoint that men should > give money to women because..., well, just because? Men should support their children as well as they can. Your deadbeat argument is still worthless. > Nice strawman, how long did it take you devise this stupid lie? I say, > as I have from the beginning, that father's have responsibility [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > simple-minded ass-wipe You just have nothing else to say except to call > "lie" and run for cover. Read it again. It is all lies. > **************************************************** > > Just when I think you've been as stupid as possible, you go one step > beyond. I know, I am shocked by how stupid you are. At least you recognize it. > What is obvious is that men paying women because of the sex of each is > your opinion of "responsibile". > All you've proven is that you're a dumb son-of-a-bitch. Obviously you need a dictionary. Unfortunately you are surrounding yourself with idiots as stupid as yourself. >> Your strawman aside, I have made the distinction between legal and >> moral responsibility from the start. The law usually steps in when [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Because you support the deadbeat agenda and because your rhetoric is > worthless. Nope, not at all but don't let that get in the way of facts you have no possible understanding of. If anything, I am against the dead-beat issue which applies almost totally to mothers, not that you'd understand that either. >> Because I don't agree with your prejudicial viewpoint that men should >> give money to women because..., well, just because? > > Men should support their children as well as they can. Your deadbeat > argument is still worthless. Bullshit. Fathers should support their children EXACTLY as mothers are assumed and presumed to do, which is that they choose the level of support as long as it is above that of legal neglect. Fair is fair and anything else is patently illegal, not that you'd care being such a sexist. >> Nice strawman, how long did it take you devise this stupid lie? I say, >> as I have from the beginning, that father's have responsibility [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Read it again. It is all lies. Can't do it, huh? Big surprise.... not. >> **************************************************** >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Obviously you need a dictionary. Unfortunately you are surrounding > yourself with idiots as stupid as yourself. You just needs some sense, any will do. Phil #3 >>> Your strawman aside, I have made the distinction between legal and >>> moral responsibility from the start. The law usually steps in when [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > If anything, I am against the dead-beat issue which applies almost totally > to mothers, not that you'd understand that either. Clearly, you are dealing with an individual that lacks a fundamental understanding of the connection between choice and responsibility for such choice; much less the concept of EQUAL protection. So don't hold your breath waiting for the light bulb to turn on. >>> Because I don't agree with your prejudicial viewpoint that men should >>> give money to women because..., well, just because? [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > You just needs some sense, any will do. Sense is a gift from God; and not all are blessed with such ability. > Phil #3 On Jul 23, 12:42 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > So now you want to make religion synonymous with law. Not surprising. Your strawman aside, I have made the distinction between legal and moral responsibility from the start. The law usually steps in when your morals and decency fall short or don't exist in the first place. > Legal and moral responsibilities are not at all the same thing nor does > one > need to be religious to have morals however one can be legal without being > moral and visa versa. I've been making the distinction from the beginning, you liars all play the same dishonest game ... if someone mentions the legal responsibility harp on the non legal, if anyone mentions the other than legal responsibilities for your kids, go back to the legal argument. We both know it is bullshit and a simple minded way for a group of liars to stick to pre approved agenda. > I think perhaps your basic problem is that you have to have everything > compartmentalized and in agreement with your basic desires in order to > make > sense of the world. > That's a shame. Individual thought is very liberating. Unlike you dirty dozen deadbeats, I express my own ideas and call bullshit when I see it. > So you're saying that a mother's ability to abort, abandon or use a child > as > a means to a paycheck is "responsible" and moral while at the same time a > father doing the same thing is immoral and irresponsible. > How very sexist of you. Nice strawman, how long did it take you devise this stupid lie? I say, as I have from the beginning, that father's have responsibility ************* The "responsibility" to pay FREE MONEY to some woman........... *************** despite the fact that women have more options. If you don't pay your bills does that make it okay for me not to pay my bills? When the sherrif shows up can I tell him that I shouldn't be responsible because of how someone else acts? The fact that you pass this stupidity off as an argument shows how fitting the deadbeat moniker is for you. The fact that none of the other idiots here will call you on this simpleton's attempt at an argument shows how correct I am in my description of your m.o. > Bullshit in spades. Allowing a parent to be a full and equal patrent is > the > minimum. Show me how "allowing you be a full ...." is your responsibility. The minimum required of a father, hence his minimum responsibility is to pay his child support. ************ Perhaps YOU might show how paying free cash to some woman meets the minimum responsibility of a man to his children. *********** > Forcing a man away from his children without cause and beign forced > to provide money because the other parent demand it is pure unadulterated > sexism. Again you prove that you have no idea what the word means. Thanks for making it so obvious this time. >>>> IMPOSSIBLE to be responsible because it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to make >>>> the choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > for his own kids, (a responsibility that exists whether the guy accepts it > or not btw)I defy you to back up that stupid lie. Not a "stupid lie". Rather a simple oversight on my part fueled by your repeated position. >> ANYONE can do that! Not the responsibility I am talking about. I am >> referring to the CONCEPT of responsibility; not some action. > > Exactly what my post described, none of the examples are examples of just > paying money to some woman. I'll give you that. But your post described nothing of the sort. Your use of the word "responsibility" is in reference to action only, NOT the concept; that being it is impossible to be responsible for a choice that is IMPOSSIBLE to make. Stated differently, by its very definition responsibility rests with the one that caused the effect. >> Apples and oranges. If I take a match to your house and burn it to the >> ground, I am "responsible" for the pile of ashes which is a state of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > company is. You are only responsible for the crime of arson and the > damage, Which is the ASHES! I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in the above statements; no arson, no ashes. What am I missing? > legally and morally. Again, you just don't make any sense. Based on your above thinking, I can see why you believe so. >> None of what I posted above can be characterized as paying money to >> some woman. Each example was an example of a person accepting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not a "stupid lie". Rather a simple oversight on my part fueled by your > repeated position. My mistake then. >> Exactly what my post described, none of the examples are examples of >> just paying money to some woman. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is IMPOSSIBLE to make. Stated differently, by its very definition > responsibility rests with the one that caused the effect. Responsibility the concept, the moral attitude, the legal obligation and the following of societies rules are what my post described. Those all exist for the father when his child is born. The action is either taking responsibility (fueled by the first 2) or being forced to take the responsibility (caused by the 2nd 2. It is quite possible for a person to be responsible for choices he doesn't make, if my 7 year old breaks all the windows in your house, guess who is responsible .... me, even though it would be impossible to make the decision to break the windows in your house. If my wife runs up a million dollars in debt but has no money, who is responsible .... again me. I wouldn't expect any judge to let me off the hook. So from a legal standpoint your argument is 100% rubbish and you are responsible. More to the point, you are partly responsible for the pregnancy and therefore have responsibility for the child whether you want an adoption an abortion or just no contact with the kid. >>> Apples and oranges. If I take a match to your house and burn it to >>> the ground, I am "responsible" for the pile of ashes which is a state [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Which is the ASHES! I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in the above > statements; no arson, no ashes. What am I missing? It is my house, therefore my responsibility, since I am insured I will lay some of that responsibility off on my insurance company. The ashes are the remnants of the house for which I am 100% responsible. You are only responsible for your crime. The house, the remnants and the ashes would be my responsibility before during and after your crime. >> legally and morally. Again, you just don't make any sense. > > Based on your above thinking, I can see why you believe so. No, based on your convoluted posts in which (such in your case) nothing you say is correct and you use examples which are completely wrong to support your incorrect ideas. >>> None of what I posted above can be characterized as paying money to some >>> woman. Each example was an example of a person accepting responsibility [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Responsibility the concept, the moral attitude, the legal obligation and > the following of societies rules are what my post described. Wrong. The concept of responsibility is nowhere to be found in your post. > Those all exist for the father when his child is born. Strike TWO! The father CANNOT be responsible for the choice to bear the child because he did NOT make such choice. A concept understood by most third graders. > The action is either taking responsibility (fueled by the first 2) or > being forced to take the responsibility (caused by the 2nd 2. > > It is quite possible for a person to be responsible for choices he doesn't > make, if my 7 year old breaks all the windows in your house, guess who is > responsible .... me, Correction, you are responsible for improperly supervising him. He is still responsible for his choice. But since he is incapable of discerning right from wrong, the person who chose to be his guardian has voluntarily accepted proxy to his choices. No different than if my dog bites someone. Is this also the case with pregnant women? > even though it would be impossible to make the decision to break the > windows in your house. If my wife runs up a million dollars in debt but > has no money, who is responsible .... again me. I wouldn't expect any > judge to let me off the hook. So from a legal standpoint your argument is > 100% rubbish and you are responsible. Who's talking law? Certainly NOT me. > More to the point, you are partly responsible for the pregnancy and > therefore have responsibility for the child Non sequitur. Notice how the subject magically changed from "pregnancy" to "child"? > whether you want an adoption an abortion or just no contact with the kid. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > responsible for your crime. The house, the remnants and the ashes would be > my responsibility before during and after your crime. Your above claims are about as untrue as it gets. "I", not you, would be responsible for (the creation of) the ashes since it was MY action (choice), not yours, that created them. You might want to review the concept of cause and effect. >>> legally and morally. Again, you just don't make any sense. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you say is correct and you use examples which are completely wrong to > support your incorrect ideas. Quote just one of my claims that is false. > "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message > > > Responsibility the concept, the moral attitude, the legal obligation and > > the following of societies rules are what my post described. > > Wrong. The concept of responsibility is nowhere to be found in your post. It is, it is in every example, you just don't recognize it, for obvious reasons. > > Those all exist for the father when his child is born. > > Strike TWO! The father CANNOT be responsible for the choice to bear the > child because he did NOT make such choice. A concept understood by most > third graders. "such" .... that makes me laugh every time. That and the fact that you are 100% wrong and the society you were raised in understands that. Maybe this is why 3rd graders never get those cushy judgeships, they can be convinced of any idiotic thing . > Correction, you are responsible for improperly supervising him. Do you live in a cave? Jesus christ you are ridiculous. If my kid breaks windows I am responsible for the damage and for replacing them, morally and legally. I am also responsible for teaching him not to do that, watching him so he doesn't do that and punishing him for doing it. > He is still > responsible for his choice. But since he is incapable of discerning right > from wrong, the person who chose to be his guardian has voluntarily accepted > proxy to his choices. No different than if my dog bites someone. Is this > also the case with pregnant women? It is different in each case, I am just explaining to you how and why (and how obviously) wrong your theory that you can't be responsible unless you get to make all the choices can be. The fact is that there are thousands of ways you can be held responsible despite not making the decisions. > > even though it would be impossible to make the decision to break the > > windows in your house. If my wife runs up a million dollars in debt but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Who's talking law? Certainly NOT me. Oh, my mistake, I thought your problem was with the law, judges, courts and whatnot, now I see you just don't want to pay money. From a moral standpoint as well as legal, I am responsible for those debts, and I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me if I told them I wasn't. > > More to the point, you are partly responsible for the pregnancy and > > therefore have responsibility for the child > > Non sequitur. Notice how the subject magically changed from "pregnancy" to > "child"? Dude, this is your lamest statement ever you should have thrown a few "such"es in there to really make it viable for a kook award. Translate 'non sequitur' and it means "does not follow" pregnancy is very often followed by a child and every 3rd grader understands that. Are you trying to claim that you accept responsibility for the pregnancy but not the child? > Your above claims are about as untrue as it gets. "I", not you, would be > responsible for (the creation of) the ashes since it was MY action (choice), The creation of the ashes would be your crime, I would still be responsible for them since I own them. > not yours, that created them. You might want to review the concept of cause > and effect. You are wrong and this stupid example keeps seeming dumber. > >>> legally and morally. Again, you just don't make any sense. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Quote just one of my claims that is false.- Hide quoted text - I quoted about three of them in this post. On Jul 19, 10:01 am, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message > > > Responsibility the concept, the moral attitude, the legal obligation and > > the following of societies rules are what my post described. > > Wrong. The concept of responsibility is nowhere to be found in your post. It is, it is in every example, you just don't recognize it, for obvious reasons. ********** I NEVER recognize the imagination of another. ******** > > Those all exist for the father when his child is born. > > Strike TWO! The father CANNOT be responsible for the choice to bear the > child because he did NOT make such choice. A concept understood by most > third graders. "such" .... that makes me laugh every time. That and the fact that you are 100% wrong ************ If I am wrong, then I am going to choose to stop making my mortgage payment and hold YOU responsible for payment. ********** and the society you were raised in understands that. Maybe this is why 3rd graders never get those cushy judgeships, they can be convinced of any idiotic thing ********** Yeah, like responsibilities being attached to rights. *********** . > Correction, you are responsible for improperly supervising him. Do you live in a cave? Jesus christ you are ridiculous. If my kid breaks windows I am responsible for the damage and for replacing them, morally and legally. ********** Who's talking law? Certainly NOT me. ********** I am also responsible for teaching him not to do that, watching him so he doesn't do that and punishing him for doing it. ********** There you go again, talking about action. ********* > He is still > responsible for his choice. But since he is incapable of discerning right > from wrong, the person who chose to be his guardian has voluntarily > accepted > proxy to his choices. No different than if my dog bites someone. Is this > also the case with pregnant women? It is different in each case, I am just explaining to you how and why (and how obviously) wrong your theory that you can't be responsible unless you get to make all the choices can be. The fact is that there are thousands of ways you can be held responsible despite not making the decisions. ************** I'm sorry, was that a "yes" or a "no"? ************ > > even though it would be impossible to make the decision to break the > > windows in your house. If my wife runs up a million dollars in debt but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Who's talking law? Certainly NOT me. Oh, my mistake, I thought your problem was with the law, judges, courts and whatnot, now I see you just don't want to pay money. ************* Correction: I don't subscribe to the concept of 'responsibility WITHOUT accompanying rights'. In other words, being held accountable for a choice that one did NOT make. *************** From a moral standpoint as well as legal, I am responsible for those debts, and I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me if I told them I wasn't. ************ That's because you reject the concept of responsibility being bundled with rights. Thus, you should have no problem being forced to pay my mortgage. ********** > > More to the point, you are partly responsible for the pregnancy and > > therefore have responsibility for the child > > Non sequitur. Notice how the subject magically changed from "pregnancy" to > "child"? Dude, this is your lamest statement ever you should have thrown a few "such"es in there to really make it viable for a kook award. Translate 'non sequitur' and it means "does not follow" pregnancy is very often followed by a child and every 3rd grader understands that. Are you trying to claim that you accept responsibility for the pregnancy but not the child? ************ "Pregnancy" does not equal "child"; thus, your conclusion does NOT follow from your premise. Non sequitur. Pretty "lame", huh? *********** > Your above claims are about as untrue as it gets. "I", not you, would be > responsible for (the creation of) the ashes since it was MY action > (choice), The creation of the ashes would be your crime, I would still be responsible for them since I own them. *********** What part of "creation" do you NOT understand? *********** > not yours, that created them. You might want to review the concept of > cause > and effect. You are wrong ********** How so? ******** and this stupid example keeps seeming dumber. > >>> legally and morally. Again, you just don't make any sense. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Quote just one of my claims that is false.- Hide quoted text - I quoted about three of them in this post. ********** I saw NOTHING in quotes. Enlighten me. >>> Narcissism >>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > choice to cause such kids to be born. Why do you insist on denying this > pesky lil' fact? It's almost guaranteed to be because if men aren't held responsible for the decisions a woman makes about the results of her actions, she might be. We just can't have that in a feminist society. Phil #3 >> That is a pretty sad example of indifference to the plight of others. I >> don't want to pay because their mother spends the money wahhhh!! The kids >> are much better off if I contribute nothing at all WAAHHHHHH. Talk about >> narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks have brought this to your >> attention before. >> Narcissism >> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > WAAHHHHHH. Talk about narcissism, I'm surprised none of your shrinks have > brought this to your attention before. Are you incapable of understanding or simply refusing to do so? (I know the answer, I just wonder if you actually think you know everything about people you've never met, know nothing about) Phil #3 >> The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can >> you apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > everything about people you've never met, know nothing about) > Phil #3 Pot kettle, black .... I see that none of you are able to discuss the facts presented in the original post though, glad to see it doesn't slow down your nonsense postings or attempts to insult me. Has anyone proven or disproven the claim that MJ died a pauper? Or would that contradict the group's code where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how stupiud it is. >>> The indifference to the plight of others is an intersting concept, can >>> you apply that to a group of guys who refuse to admit that they should [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > where you stick to every lie told by another deadbeat no matter how > stupiud it is. You're a fine one to talk about insulting others. The term is called "hypocrisy". Phil#3 > "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - And you put on a show of hypocrisy every time you post. I see you can't show me where I was wrong about the original topic though, you'd rather just make this post about me. Feel free, if that makes you feel better about things. On Jul 21, 9:49 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - And you put on a show of hypocrisy every time you post. I see you can't show me where I was wrong about the original topic though, you'd rather just make this post about me. Feel free, if that makes you feel better about things. ********************************************* I don't need to show anything. You don't need help proving yourself to be a hypocrite. Phil #3 > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Wahhhh, I can't prove that being a deadbeat is honorable or even excusable so I will avoid the subject again...... wahhhhh On Jul 22, 6:47 pm, "Phil #3" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote: > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Wahhhh, I can't prove that being a deadbeat is honorable or even excusable so I will avoid the subject again...... wahhhhh ************************************************** See? Thanks for proving my point but it was actually unnecessary. Phil #3 > "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Oh, did you ever prove the original point in this thread was wrong? If you did, that post never made it to usenet. Are you trying to avoid the fact that you can't cover your co-deadbeat's bullshit so you need to change the subject one more time? Your lies are pretty weak, you must really have a vested interest in being a deadbeat if you are willing to bullshit this much. [snip] Oh, did you ever prove the original point in this thread was wrong? If you did, that post never made it to usenet. Are you trying to avoid the fact that you can't cover your co-deadbeat's bullshit so you need to change the subject one more time? Your lies are pretty weak, you must really have a vested interest in being a deadbeat if you are willing to bullshit this much. ---------------------------- From the OP: "In psychology and psychiatry, excessive narcissism is recognized as a severe personality disorder. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit, egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others." I'd say it fits you to a T, XXX. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I'd say it fits you to a T, XXX. Sorry stupid, if you can prove that you have a 3 digit IQ or any marketable skill I might take your 40th stupid post seriously. I have never seen a dumber person willingly put his stupidity on display. Just for kicks, do you have any SAT scores to share? >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > never seen a dumber person willingly put his stupidity on display. Just > for kicks, do you have any SAT scores to share? Thanks for proving my point. >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Thanks for proving my point. Which point was that? That you are indifferent to the plight of others? Or were you referring to one of the many real descriptions of a narcissistic sociopath which says they rarely pay their bills or manage any long term relationships. Maybe you should look up projection next time you are diagnosing yourself. On Jul 26, 1:54 am, "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote: > >>> [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Which point was that? That you are indifferent to the plight of others? You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you, surely, XXX? He did respond to your post, after all. > Or were you referring to one of the many real descriptions of a > narcissistic sociopath which says they rarely pay their bills or manage > any long term relationships. Maybe you should look up projection next > time you are diagnosing yourself. > You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you, > surely, XXX? He did respond to your post, after all. As you know (but are pretending not to) I am not. If you read the post you will see that his indifference is to the plight of his kids, the kids he is fighting for the right to completely abandon if he can't have them aborted. Of course the obvious thing is that I don't have a plight for anyone to take interest in, I'm not here whining about things the way he is. >>Or were you referring to one of the many real descriptions of a >>narcissistic sociopath which says they rarely pay their bills or manage >>any long term relationships. Maybe you should look up projection next >>time you are diagnosing yourself. >> You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you, >> surely, XXX? He did respond to your post, after all. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > anyone to take interest in, I'm not here whining about things the way he > is. Indifference to the plight of my kids? Fighting for the right to abandon them or abort them?? Wow, I knew you were a whack-job XXX, but this is really over the top. I am, however, slightly surprised that you haven't claimed to have read about it in the New York Times.. I highly recommend that you seek medical help immediately, before the guys in the white coats take you to the rubber room. You have definitely lost the few remaining marbles you had left. > "X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I highly recommend that you seek medical help immediately, There you go, XXX! Dusty has a sincere concern for your plight. > before the guys > in the white coats take you to the rubber room. You have definitely lost > the few remaining marbles you had left. >>"X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > There you go, XXX! Dusty has a sincere concern for your plight. If only you understood what was going on. >>>"X...@XXX.COM" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > If only you understood what was going on. Seems to me that Ted indeed does understand. I cannot say the same for you. >>> You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you, >>> surely, XXX? He did respond to your post, after all. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > guys in the white coats take you to the rubber room. You have > definitely lost the few remaining marbles you had left. I recommend that you learn how to read for comprehension. >>>> You can't seriously be accusing Dusty of being indifferent to you, >>>> surely, XXX? He did respond to your post, after all. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> > I recommend that you learn how to read for comprehension. I recommend that you get your head outta your a.s, but that would be redundant since they are one and the same. Narcissistic and psychopathic parents and their children - click on the links: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4727 Do not rely on the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia" that anyone and everyone can edit, even people who know nothing about the topic. As a result, it contains a lot of misinformation and plain nonsense. Learn more about the Wikipedia's flawed work here: http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/wikipedia.html For a more detailed view of pathological narcissism and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) - click on these links: http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html http://samvak.tripod.com/personalitydisorders12.html http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/personalitydisorders13.html http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/personalitydisorders14.html http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/narcissismglance.html http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq1.html Other Personality Disorders http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faqpd.html Pathological Narcissism diagnosed with Other Mental Health Disorders http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq82.html NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) and AsPD (Antisocial Personality Disorder, Psychopathy, or Sociopathy) http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/personalitydisorders16.html http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/personalitydisorders15.html Celebrity narcissists http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq19.html http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal73.html Narcissism and Religion http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal45.html http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq47.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.