also, I never regarded my partners as property, so really I just don't get it as an insult
Well, I mean, if you enjoy watching your devoted partner being fucked by someone else, then I guess you wouldn't see it as an insult... If my devoted partner was being fucked by someone else I'd kick them the hell out of my house and not really care about the insult, as I'd be happy to have parted with such a piece of shit of a human being. You MONOGAMIST PIG!!!!!! Don't you know that sharing is caring?  Lmao, I'm sorry. Please let me pay 99% of my income in taxes, weeeeeeeeee Thought experiment. On his way up the dusty trail to retrieve his silver stash, roach encounters ibian asleep. Afraid he might try to steal his silver on the way back down, roach considers poisoning ibian's whisky. And according to the logic of self-interest, he does. Later, ibian shoots roach and robs him. Then he drinks some whisky and dies.
Had roach and ibian cared more about the welfare of others and less about themselves, they would still be alive today.
Jokes on you, I never drink whisky. Or whiskey. Makes me barf. So the bug dies and I get to live. Everyone wins! It might be 'whiskey' to you. To me it's breakfast. What is your favourite dram! |
|
|
|
To answer the earlier question, the biological father is a deadbeat in another country and irrelevant. The ex-wife takes reasonable care of the kids when they are in her custody and that’s all that really matters. I don’t care for her other lifestyle choices but again irrelevant.
My buddy now has a new wife. And she has taken on the stepchildren as her own as well. Even though none of them are hers. So all of you making a fuss about the kids not being biologically yours, do you think the stepmom should kick these kids out of the house ? Yeah I thought not.
You didn't answer the question. However much of a scumbag the biological father is doesn't matter in this argument, which is about setting a dangerous precedent that poses a serious threat to society. Your buddy also has no relevance to this argument. Whatever choices he freely makes is entirely up to him. Using his choices as a justification for legally forcing somebody to pay for children that are not his is ridiculous. Cmon dude. Taking care of children is a serious threat to society? On a forum where most of us have earned more than the US average annual wage in the past week, if not much much more? You are better than this. Maybe worry about the alt-right muppets who go shoot up a school every second week. Now there’s a threat to society. Do you not understand English? Or am I getting trolled here? |
|
|
|
I believe this falls under caveat emptor.
Very true. How about don't stick your dick in a woman you wouldn't want to be the mother of your child. Simple concept requires long view, self control. So nevermind, it will never fly. You believe sex is only for reproduction? Comon... He never said that you can't pork the mother of your (future) children for fun. |
|
|
|
Thought experiment. On his way up the dusty trail to retrieve his silver stash, roach encounters ibian asleep. Afraid he might try to steal his silver on the way back down, roach considers poisoning ibian's whisky. And according to the logic of self-interest, he does. Later, ibian shoots roach and robs him. Then he drinks some whisky and dies.
Had roach and ibian cared more about the welfare of others and less about themselves, they would still be alive today.
Jokes on you, I never drink whisky. Or whiskey. Makes me barf. So the bug dies and I get to live. Everyone wins! I would describe you as a savage. But the internet has deprived the term of the intended meaning. |
|
|
|
I don't see how somebody who didn't put themselves and their own development (economical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) first would raise children. Such a person would have nothing to offer to their offspring and just propagate problems through generations instead of making improvements.
You appear to like thinking in absolutes. Life doesn't work that way. If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her? There are moments when there is a tradeoff between what is best for you personally, and what is best for them. I understand very well how life works. And making sure that I put myself in the best position that I possibly could from the above mentioned perspectives ensures that my children will be significantly better off than the children of somebody who chose to play along with their peers instead. Do I have to argue out how being emotionally stable, intellectually honest, and financially independent are traits that would be beneficial for any child's parents to have? You could start by actually responding to my argument, Mr. Intellectual Honesty. You haven't made any arguments. You've brought up a random example that is pretty much irrelevant to the point. But let's entertain it. If I've made sure that I'm financially stable I will be capable of providing better health care to my child as a result. You think having good health care means your children will never get sick? Why don't you actually answer the question: If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her? Do you understand comparatives? I've specifically talked about better health care as a result of putting my own growth above hive mind before having children. And last I've checked better is a descriptor that indicates superiority over inferior instances. But since that still doesn't seem to get into your head, here's another angle, from the same argument that I've already made multiple times now. If I've made sure to put myself first, which includes emotional stability, then I would still have a far easier time to give up my sleeping hours and be more capable of providing emotional support and soothing to my sick child. If you put the same amount of effort into understanding my argument that you put into trying to make up some pointless example and trying to twist and bend it to make up nonsensical arguments you might actually get why making sure that you're fully self-responsible before having kids is the highest goal that any parent can achieve (as a person responsible for the life of a child). I never made any claims that being a responsible and self-sufficient person isn't a great start for being a parent, in fact I agree with that. For me it is strange that you don't see giving up your hours of sleep for someone else and always putting yourself first as logically conflicting, but I guess your personal definition of 'putting yourself first' is different from mine. If I don't put myself and find myself in a situation where I first have to fend off an attacker before I can tend to my child I would be a moron not to make sure that I'm safe in order to be in a position where I can help my child. There's a reason why you put your own oxygen mask on first, before tending to your child. It's a very simple order. Make sure that I am in the best position that I can be to help my child, then help my child, and then if I have enough energy left help my wife. And if I can be bothered, then perhaps I might even do something good for the rest of humanity. But that's the dead last priority. There is a certain amount of growth that needs to take place before you can genuinely provide reasonable support for others, and that takes a long time. There's a reason why there's so many snowflakes on the US left that keep making up the most ridiculous cases such as affirmative action. And I say that as someone who could easily exploit the bullshit that they make up. |
|
|
|
To answer the earlier question, the biological father is a deadbeat in another country and irrelevant. The ex-wife takes reasonable care of the kids when they are in her custody and that’s all that really matters. I don’t care for her other lifestyle choices but again irrelevant.
My buddy now has a new wife. And she has taken on the stepchildren as her own as well. Even though none of them are hers. So all of you making a fuss about the kids not being biologically yours, do you think the stepmom should kick these kids out of the house ? Yeah I thought not.
You didn't answer the question. However much of a scumbag the biological father is doesn't matter in this argument, which is about setting a dangerous precedent that poses a serious threat to society. Your buddy also has no relevance to this argument. Whatever choices he freely makes is entirely up to him. Using his choices as a justification for legally forcing somebody to pay for children that are not his is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Imagine if as a competitor you bought the competitions token in ICO and slowly kept selling it cheap and hired people to pose as ICO participants and to spam thread with negative comments and dumb technical FUD. It’s a dick move but would be hard to defend against. So be calm please.
From an economical perspective that would be the dumbest tactic that anybody could ever employ. You'd need to buy a significant amount to have any impact on the price of a serious project (which CL is not). And that money would be far better spent on your own development. Because the whole market crashed just after cl launched lol. It's not really their fault
And because crashes make people do one of two things: cash out into fiat or sell their small coins for bigger, more tested coins
CL crashed much stronger than the entire rest of the market. Because it's a scam and the "devs" are holding 80~90% of the supply. |
|
|
|
Out of three as if it makes any difference. These are little people not lines on graphs.
Let me try a different angle. Do you see how the judges decision to force the man in question to pay for the child support of three children that are not biologically his own with a court order could set a precedent for some women to seek out men out of which they'd essentially extort child support by simply playing nice for a period of time? I believe this falls under caveat emptor. You are calling women objects there. Might want to check your male privilege. Hey. Hey don't run off. This is serious. If a feminist saw what you just posted, they would dox you and get you fired. You better disavow yourself while you still have the chance. (i'm not a feminist. don't worry, i wouldn't even dox you mate. just do the right thing.) He might be talking about the jurisdictional decision. Which would bring me back to my point of the judge being irresponsible by risking the very same public order that he is supposed to uphold. |
|
|
|
I don't see how somebody who didn't put themselves and their own development (economical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) first would raise children. Such a person would have nothing to offer to their offspring and just propagate problems through generations instead of making improvements.
You appear to like thinking in absolutes. Life doesn't work that way. If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her? There are moments when there is a tradeoff between what is best for you personally, and what is best for them. I understand very well how life works. And making sure that I put myself in the best position that I possibly could from the above mentioned perspectives ensures that my children will be significantly better off than the children of somebody who chose to play along with their peers instead. Do I have to argue out how being emotionally stable, intellectually honest, and financially independent are traits that would be beneficial for any child's parents to have? You could start by actually responding to my argument, Mr. Intellectual Honesty. You haven't made any arguments. You've brought up a random example that is pretty much irrelevant to the point. But let's entertain it. If I've made sure that I'm financially stable I will be capable of providing better health care to my child as a result. You think having good health care means your children will never get sick? Why don't you actually answer the question: If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her? Do you understand comparatives? I've specifically talked about better health care as a result of putting my own growth above hive mind before having children. And last I've checked better is a descriptor that indicates superiority over inferior instances. But since that still doesn't seem to get into your head, here's another angle, from the same argument that I've already made multiple times now. If I've made sure to put myself first, which includes emotional stability, then I would still have a far easier time to give up my sleeping hours and be more capable of providing emotional support and soothing to my sick child. If you put the same amount of effort into understanding my argument that you put into trying to make up some pointless example and trying to twist and bend it to make up nonsensical arguments you might actually get why making sure that you're fully self-responsible before having kids is the highest goal that any parent can achieve (as a person responsible for the life of a child). |
|
|
|
Out of three as if it makes any difference. These are little people not lines on graphs.
Let me try a different angle. Do you see how the judges decision to force the man in question to pay for the child support of three children that are not biologically his own with a court order could set a precedent for some women to seek out men out of which they'd essentially extort child support by simply playing nice for a period of time? |
|
|
|
Keep in mind the kids come first. Everyone else comes second.
That means that making the kids suffer because the mother slept around is the wrong answer.
No. I come first. Then my kids - (...) I seriously doubt you have kids. and if so, I feel really sorry for them. I don't see how somebody who didn't put themselves and their own development (economical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) first would raise children. Such a person would have nothing to offer to their offspring and just propagate problems through generations instead of making improvements. You appear to like thinking in absolutes. Life doesn't work that way. If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her? There are moments when there is a tradeoff between what is best for you personally, and what is best for them. I understand very well how life works. And making sure that I put myself in the best position that I possibly could from the above mentioned perspectives ensures that my children will be significantly better off than the children of somebody who chose to play along with their peers instead. Do I have to argue out how being emotionally stable, intellectually honest, and financially independent are traits that would be beneficial for any child's parents to have? You could start by actually responding to my argument, Mr. Intellectual Honesty. You haven't made any arguments. You've brought up a random example that is pretty much irrelevant to the point. But let's entertain it. If I've made sure that I'm financially stable I will be capable of providing better health care to my child as a result. |
|
|
|
One of the four was his biological child. The other three children he had raised as his own from birth.
To turn his back on those children for something that was not the fault of those children, means he is a piece of shit.
Yes. One out of four. That doesn't mean that he should be paying child support for four out of four but one out of four kids. And not wanting to pay child support for kids that aren't yours isn't the same as not being there for them if they want to visit either, especially when it's to be assumed that most of the child support goes to the filthy cheating whore and not to the children. Tough shit. Man up. Pay the fucking support. I don't wish it upon you, but you would certainly deserve getting cheated by the person you love and being forced to pay for 3 kids that aren't yours while knowing that the cunt that cheated on you will be spending the majority of that money. It’s happened to a buddy of mine. He still loves his kids, pays support and guess what, he now has majority custody because he is the more better parent. Now the ex-wife only has custody every second weekend. He has them the rest of the time. Good for him. He clearly made a choice. And the cunt has no chance to spend his money. Using that as an argument to force other men to pay for children that are not theirs doesn't fly though. |
|
|
|
One of the four was his biological child. The other three children he had raised as his own from birth.
To turn his back on those children for something that was not the fault of those children, means he is a piece of shit.
Yes. One out of four. That doesn't mean that he should be paying child support for four out of four but one out of four kids. And not wanting to pay child support for kids that aren't yours isn't the same as not being there for them if they want to visit either, especially when it's to be assumed that most of the child support goes to the filthy cheating whore and not to the children. Tough shit. Man up. Pay the fucking support. I don't wish it upon you, but you would certainly deserve getting cheated by the person you love and being forced to pay for 3 kids that aren't yours while knowing that the cunt that cheated on you will be spending the majority of that money. |
|
|
|
One of the four was his biological child. The other three children he had raised as his own from birth.
To turn his back on those children for something that was not the fault of those children, means he is a piece of shit.
Yes. One out of four. That doesn't mean that he should be paying child support for four out of four but one out of four kids. And not wanting to pay child support for kids that aren't yours isn't the same as not being there for them if they want to visit either, especially when it's to be assumed that most of the child support goes to the filthy cheating whore and not to the children. |
|
|
|
Keep in mind the kids come first. Everyone else comes second.
That means that making the kids suffer because the mother slept around is the wrong answer.
No. I come first. Then my kids - (...) I seriously doubt you have kids. and if so, I feel really sorry for them. I don't see how somebody who didn't put themselves and their own development (economical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) first would raise children. Such a person would have nothing to offer to their offspring and just propagate problems through generations instead of making improvements. You appear to like thinking in absolutes. Life doesn't work that way. If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her? There are moments when there is a tradeoff between what is best for you personally, and what is best for them. I understand very well how life works. And making sure that I put myself in the best position that I possibly could from the above mentioned perspectives ensures that my children will be significantly better off than the children of somebody who chose to play along with their peers instead. Do I have to argue out how being emotionally stable, intellectually honest, and financially independent are traits that would be beneficial for any child's parents to have? |
|
|
|
You planning on being homeless in Fargo or San Diego? Choose one. I don't know what either of those places look like. And it has no bearing on the argument. You've made a remark, and I've demonstrated it to be false. You haven't. How does California's homeless population "demonstrate" anything about alt-right or their relationships? It's like saying that racist bile in this thread is making Bitcoin go up. It might be the case for all I know but I'd like to see the evidence. He insisted that the average alt-right is "unemployed". Given that a quarter of all homeless people in the US are found in California, the most left state in the US, it's clear that I have.
Keep in mind the kids come first. Everyone else comes second.
That means that making the kids suffer because the mother slept around is the wrong answer.
No. I come first. Then my kids - (...) I seriously doubt you have kids. and if so, I feel really sorry for them. I don't see how somebody who didn't put themselves and their own development (economical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) first would raise children. Such a person would have nothing to offer to their offspring and just propagate problems through generations instead of making improvements. You appear to like thinking in absolutes. Life doesn't work that way. If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her? There are moments when there is a tradeoff between what is best for you personally, and what is best for them. You don't get it. What is best for me, what I mean by putting myself first, is that my kids have the best possible life I can give them. What you call sacrificing for others is my selfishness. And the stronger and smarter and richer I am, the more I can do for them. Like making your children homeless or putting them into state custody per the example of the court case earlier in the thread. They were not his children. How many times are you going to attempt to make this false argument? |
|
|
|
Keep in mind the kids come first. Everyone else comes second.
That means that making the kids suffer because the mother slept around is the wrong answer.
No. I come first. Then my kids - (...) I seriously doubt you have kids. and if so, I feel really sorry for them. I don't see how somebody who didn't put themselves and their own development (economical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) first would raise children. Such a person would have nothing to offer to their offspring and just propagate problems through generations instead of making improvements. And that's what most commonly happens. Stefan Molyneux deals with shit like that. Not subbed to him, but he does have a good deal of insight into family issues. Well holy fuck. That's sobering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjp55-0W2QE |
|
|
|
Are we going to the moon tomorrow or fucking what?
Which moon? |
|
|
|
Keep in mind the kids come first. Everyone else comes second.
That means that making the kids suffer because the mother slept around is the wrong answer.
No. I come first. Then my kids - (...) I seriously doubt you have kids. and if so, I feel really sorry for them. I don't see how somebody who didn't put themselves and their own development (economical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) first would raise children. Such a person would have nothing to offer to their offspring and just propagate problems through generations instead of making improvements. |
|
|
|
I’m not from the US either but I’m familiar with its geography. Fargo is in North Dakota. It’s bitterly cold in winter. You will die from exposure if you are in the open. San Diego is close to the Mexican border. It is warm. You will not die.
California also has a population of 40 million. North Dakota has a population of 800,000.
That’s two very good reasons why you would expect more homeless in California than North Dakota.
I don’t even know why I am talking about this.
You can fling absolute numbers, but my post indicated that a quarter of the US homeless population is in California. Meanwhile, California only has around 12% of the US population (which is less than an eighth). Also, we're talking about this because you've made an absolutely ignorant and generalizing remark which doesn't even make sense. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
