|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 12, @12:30PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd ask how it is that the man went three years without seeing the child and still paid for it. Then I remembered that visitation is strictly at the option of the woman, and the system works so slowly that irreplaceable time is lost, so of course it took three years of due process. But of course, it's fair. The feminazis say so.
I'd ask how it is that the agencies responsible for this let this slide for three years without looking into it. But then I'd remembered that the unsubstantiated word of the woman is good enough, and it's wrong and insensitive to question it. The feminazis say so.
I'd ask if the woman is going to be prosecuted for fraud, tax evasion, and extortion; and be liable to monetary damages for restitution, triple idemnity, pain and suffering, and interest just like she would if she were a man. But then I remembered that since she's a woman a different standard will, of course, be applied to her since she's of the female aristocracy. After all, women are morally superior. The feminazis say so.
On second thought, I don't have any questions. It's just business as usual for Living While Male. Except for maybe the painfully obvious questions of: "Why do we let this continue? Didn't we shoot a bunch of guys in red coats for similar bullshit a couple centuries ago?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd ask if the woman is going to be prosecuted for fraud, tax evasion, and extortion; and be liable to monetary damages for restitution, triple idemnity, pain and suffering, and interest just like she would if she were a man.
Of course not; if the laws are anything like the CA bill, the fleeced father will be able to sue the real father for damages!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 12, @03:32PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Of course not; if the laws are anything like the CA bill, the fleeced father will be able to sue the real father for damages!"
This is a good point, but a bit inaccurate because the child does not actually exist, so there is no *real* biological father to sue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This is a good point, but a bit inaccurate because the child does not actually exist, so there is no *real* biological father to sue."
The real father is Steve Hackett.
I program my home computer; beam myself into the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 12, @04:48PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Who is Steve Hackett and how did he father a non-existant child?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Of course not; if the laws are anything like the CA bill, the fleeced father will be able to sue the real father for damages!"
This is a good point, but a bit inaccurate because the child does not actually exist, so there is no *real* biological father to sue.
Not to be heavy handed by spelling out a joke, but the fact that there is no real father to sue and that the intent of the law is that the perpetrator of paternity fraud should under no circumstances be penalized (mothers are above the law), and that the defrauded party should have no recourse was the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 12, @06:57PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Not to be heavy handed by spelling out a joke, but the fact that there is no real father to sue and that the intent of the law is that the perpetrator of paternity fraud should under no circumstances be penalized (mothers are above the law), and that the defrauded party should have no recourse was the point.
Sorry Mars. Sometimes it is difficult to tell whether people are joking or not on the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 13, @01:22AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
And we still don't know who the h--l Steve Hackett is!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Of course not; if the laws are anything like the CA bill, the fleeced father will be able to sue the real father for damages!"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Thanks Mars, I needed that.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anon wrote:
"I'd ask if the woman is going to be prosecuted for fraud, tax evasion, and extortion; and be liable to monetary damages for restitution, triple idemnity, pain and suffering, and interest just like she would if she were a man."
Mars replied:
"...if the laws are anything like the CA bill, the fleeced father will be able to sue the real father for damages!"
Mars reconsiders:
We know that as far as the child support enforcement agencies are concerned, it is of the utmost importance that some man must pay, and that the mother should not, for unstated reasons that devolve, by some act of faith in lieu of analysis, to the best interests of the child. Outrage is freely substituted for explanation when an explanation is called for, and it is always out of line to call for an explanation.
With that in mind, the child support agency could say to itself, "the issue of who the father is and whether there is a baby are two separate issues; some father must pay: the fact that there is no baby isn't our bureaucratic problem, since we have documents that show there is a child to whom support is due. If we were philosophers, we would insist that to exist is to exist (possibly but not exclusively by a default judgement) in our files; our ontology admits persons who exist and who owe (or are owed) money if and only if our documents say they do. Moreover, the principle of always acting in the best interests of the child is of such over-arching importance that we must adhere to it whether there exist any children at all; therefore, we'll arbitrarily re-assign the role of father to some other hapless male, and send him the bill instead. That way the first defrauded father can sue the second defrauded father, if he wishes, although that step is strictly beyond our bureaucratic purview."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 14, @01:59PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
First there was "GHOST employment", Now we could have "GHOST child support".
Now I've seen everything.
She gives birth to CASPER, You pay through the nose. Yeah, I'd say that's scary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Things I'd like to know... Why people who are bright enough to pull something like this off don't use the same skills to make money legitimately?
You hear about these elaborate scams and embezzlements where the person put so much effort and ingenuity into the scam that they could just as well use to get ahead in legit business. Or they could become stock traders or something.
But because they's seemingly rather risk getting caught in doing something illegal it makes me think there is a mental imbalance to their genius, almost like its a game to see how long they can get away without getting caught.
C'mon people scam old people and gullible people and even fairly smart people everyday. This is just an unusual way to do it. Seems pretty stupid in the end to assume the guy would never ask to see the child or even try to see the child by spying on her. Of course, he doesn't seem so bright either for not checking out his own (presumed) child sooner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Things I'd like to know... Why people who are bright enough to pull something like this off don't use the same skills to make money legitimately?
Oh, surely this can't be so, a WOMAN would surely make more money legitimately....
You hear about these elaborate scams and embezzlements where the person put so much effort and ingenuity into the scam that they could just as well use to get ahead in legit business. Or they could become stock traders or something.
So it's obviously an aberration, or an urban legend....
But because they's seemingly rather risk getting caught in doing something illegal it makes me think there is a mental imbalance to their genius, almost like its a game to see how long they can get away without getting caught.
It's an isolated incident, because the system would NEVER be used by any REAL woman for abuse...Honestly....
C'mon people scam old people and gullible people and even fairly smart people everyday.
Even if it is, it's not a big deal, everyone does it
This is just an unusual way to do it. Seems pretty stupid in the end to assume the guy would never ask to see the child or even try to see the child by spying on her.
It's a quirk, an anomoly, no need to think this might be happening in more than one place...
Of course, he doesn't seem so bright either for not checking out his own (presumed) child sooner.
Anyway, he was asking to be raped...er, for it...
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, people are scammed everyday. This is just a different twist. I'm quite interested in this from a logical standpoint, wondering how she thought she could get away with this with no child. In that respect it's a little different than many scams in which the criminal takes the money and absconds. This one she seemed to think she could stay put and keep the scam ongoing indefinitly, which makes one wonder about several things, not the least of which, did she have a good idea that they guy would not check to see if there was a kid? Or was she just delusional in thinking he wouldn't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, guess what, chicky-poo, it does happen, and it happens a lot. It happens because the system is broke, and all the king's horses and all the king's men can't fix it.
This scam is just an example of what has been caught - and we all know about smoke, fire, and tips of icebergs. It's a lucrative racket, what, $8K or so a year, tax free. I could sure use that kind of shot in the arm.
(And it's kind of funny, too, that 8 grand - when my nieces lived with me for 6 months a few years back, my expenses over the whole time went up maybe a thousand dollars. MAYBE. But back-door alimony for allegedly strong, independant, self sufficient women who don't need men to stand on their own two feet is another story.)
This woman got away with not letting the father see the kid for three years precisely because it's easy to do. It's a damning indictment on the whole screwed up system where a check is hounded after, but "the process" for having the second parent - which you by your own words say is one of the most important things in a child's life - takes that long to reach that conclusion. It's obvious what the system values. Only question is, how can anyone with an iota of morality support such a system?
What do you think a child would rather have? A daddy? Or an abstract check? The answer of this system is obvious - the check. Pretty damn black and white. Ya fer or agin, as my great-grandpappy used to ask?
This part, C'mon people scam old people and gullible people and even fairly smart people everyday. This is just an unusual way to do it. Seems pretty stupid in the end to assume the guy would never ask to see the child or even try to see the child by spying on her. Of course, he doesn't seem so bright either for not checking out his own (presumed) child sooner. Is nothing short of monstrous. So if enough people commit a wrong act, it becomes right? Morality by majority vote? Let's make sure we notify NARAL of your incoming membership, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your professed opposition to abortion is face value.
And I'm sure many criminals will be glad to know that you might be on their jury when they defend themselves with the words, "She asked for it, I mean what was she doing dressed like that in that area of town? She WANTED it, man..."
This is a new low, even for you.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get a grip on reality. I didn't say it was right, I said it was a different sort of scam, one you don't hear about everyday. Usually you hear about old people scammed out of their life savings or the dutiful secretary who is later found out to have embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company. This just seems odd to me because I don't see how she came to believe she could get away with this with no child. No matter what the scam I always wonder about the gullibility of those scammed, how could it happen. Doesn't mean I don't feel bad for them or think they deserved it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 14, @01:33PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I think this Woman was just a little wierd and everything.
not to mention not real bright.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't mean I don't feel bad for them or think they deserved it.
Oh really? Let's look at what you did say:
Of course, he doesn't seem so bright either for not checking out his own (presumed) child sooner.
Now, let's give it the old twistaroo to make it strike closer to home:
Of course, she doesn't seem so bright either for walking around at that hour of night in a revealing dress.
Hmmmmm - I trust you'd say the same about a female victim of rape?
'Tain't no apples and oranges - it's the same damn thing - and if you "don't mean it that way" then don't say it that way - and have the courage to retract it when you do.
I have the grip on reality, honey. And you're trying to shift some of the blame to the victim.
Doesn't fly in a rape case.
Doesn't fly in a criminal fraud case.
Seperate standard for men and women? That's just plain old fashioned bigotry, just like the KKK.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see what you're saying and agree up to a point. But there is a differece. If you go out in a tight dress late at night alone, you may not be bright and you may be tempting fate, but you are not asking to be raped. There is a difference between not taking precautions and asking to be the victim of a crime.
If I leave my car unlocked with my purse inside, it's not very smart. That doesn't mean I condone theft or was asking for theft, it just means I'm not very smart and didnt take precautions. Ideally, everyone should be honest and no one should steal even when tempted. But in the real world one has to be vigilant.
When old people get scammed out of their life savings, I feel bad for them, and I want the scam artist prosecuted. But I still wonder why so old people seem so gullible and you often hear of them getting scammed.
In this case, the guy apparently had sex with this woman or he wouldn't have believed he fathered a child. But then he didn't check and just paid for several years? He didn't even ask for a DNA test or even check to see if there was a child. Granted, he could not have foreseen that someone would try to scam him with NO child. But I'm really surprised this woman got away with the scam at all much less for as long as she did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I'm really surprised this woman got away with the scam at all much less for as long as she did.
But of course you are surprised! :)
You have undoubtedly heard the case made here countless times that the system has so many inbuilt biases against men that it actually provides incentives to women to then. This case has been explicitly cited here as proof and an inevitable consequence of that bias. If you had accepted that case, you would not be surprised.
If you are surprised, you must have rejected it. By "wondering" about her expectations here, you can implicitly register your rejection of system-bias as the cause. It's embedded within the search for other causes. Instead, like Jeeves, you search for a solution in the psychology of the individual.
The questions this case raises that we are interested in are whether the system encouraged this act, and if so, what to do about it. If you want to argue that it didn't encourage her, fine. You'll get an argument.
If you want to wonder about the psychology of con-persons, find a board that gives a shit and stop wasting our time.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this case, the guy apparently had sex with this woman or he wouldn't have believed he fathered a child. But then he didn't check and just paid for several years? He didn't even ask for a DNA test or even check to see if there was a child. Granted, he could not have foreseen that someone would try to scam him with NO child. But I'm really surprised this woman got away with the scam at all much less for as long as she did.
And here I have to second what Larry says - you're the only one who is suprised, it seems.
Not seeing a child for several years? Having it take that long for things to get to the point where she has to show her cards or fold? Having the mere word taken and the "You owe me, pay up or go to jail" game start?
Denied custody, delay, and don't verify - happens all the time, each and every day.
Note the lack of shock here. Seriously, go and look. 90 days without a CS check, and watch the stormtroopers come kicking down the door. 3 years late in visitation? Big yawn, big oh well, big police saying "Go get a court order" courts say "Here you go, have the sheriff enforce it" sheriff says, "No, not me, go to the courts" and round and round we go.
The system supports such behavior. The system encourages it. Attorneys get rich from it. Think attorneys are going to help end it? And you're suprised when someone takes the free gun, given by the state, and sees that nobody will say "boo" if they fire it - so they fire it?
This isn't an anomaly. This isn't some exception. This isn't some aberration, some isolated incident, some obscure ancedote from some podunk burg two miles east of BFE in the state of West Nowhere. The name of men who haven't seen children in years - because mommy dearest doesn't want them to - is Legion; because all the protestations of how "important" fathers are from these agencies is mere lip service, empty words, and so much wind.
They won't do diddly.
Why did this guy pay for three years when the only thing going was what she claimed? When he never saw the child? Why did it take that long to push her to a DNA test where she had no choice but to come clean? Because he had to, or go to jail. Because access to children is routinely denied and winked at. And because the system drags its feet when it comes to fathers.
That is the way the system works. And no matter what the law "says" it is how the law is applied. Two entirely different things.
I'd be shocked she was arrested, except that in this case she made "the state," "the ageenmcy" embarassed, which is one of the unforgivable sins.
So do you seriously wonder where many women get the idea that they can abuse the law, and/or use it to go after men for profit or revenge with impunity?
Doesn't suprise me. You yourself advocated not long ago that fraud should be a civil matter. No criminal sanctions. Well, well, well. Wonder where many women get the idea that such behavior is above the law?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...it actually provides incentives to women to then.
should read:
...it actually provides incentives to women to defraud them.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, yeah maybe there is something built-in to our system where a woman thinks she can get away with such a thing. She obviously did get away with it for several years. However, did you stop to consider that there may be cultural "built-ins" into our system that might make a person named as a father never bother to check? There "could be" all kinds of things culturally endemic that would lead to this sort of thing happening.
I brought up other examples, such as why does it seem like old people get scammed all the time (or at least you hear about it a lot). Well, consider that maybe old people are vulnerable to that because of cultural reasons, like they are lonely and not included in the family as much as they used to be.. that make them suseptible. Then consider that scam artists are aware of that, pick up on it, and use the vulnerablilitites for nefarious purposes.
How could this woman make a bet that this guy wouldn't ask for a paternity test, or at least ask to see the child? Did she know something about him as an individual that is not mentioned in the article? Something that made her think she could pull off this scam? Or did she make a bet that culturally, she had a good shot at him not snooping around and asking a lot of questions by making assumptions about men in general?
Either way, it's an unusual case. In the case of old people getting scams there have been numerous attempts to warn them and try to mitigate the risks for them (in addition to prosecuting the criminals). Wouldn't it be a good idea to find out if men are suseptible to this type of scam because of culturally ingrained reasons?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, this case IS unusual.
Secondly, I've never said one way or the other whether fraud should be prosecuted as a civil matter vs. a criminal matter. It should be prosecuted the same as any other fraud case. I'm the one who advocates for universal DNA testing which would eliminate most 99% of fruad if it were implemented. You must have me confused with someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 16, @04:43PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Secondly, I've never said one way or the other whether fraud should be prosecuted as a civil matter vs. a criminal matter. It should be prosecuted the same as any other fraud case. I'm the one who advocates for universal DNA testing which would eliminate most 99% of fruad if it were implemented. You must have me confused with someone else.
From CA paternity Justice Act, et al, Comment #64
By: Lorianne
I do not think men should have to pay for children who are not theirs. I think they should be able to sue the mother and recover the money, using the same laws that apply to other types of civil actions. I do not think this should be a crime for the same reason I don't think adultery should be a crime. I think it's a matter of one person hurting another emotionally, and nobody has a right to go through life without having other people hurt them emotionally.
??????? How is that again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 16, @05:00PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't an unusual case. I can name several men who, even though they haven't been judged unfit, have been unable to see their children for months and years. One I know wasn't allowed to see his daughter till she was fourteen. Three years isn't that suprising.
Do you want to know why things like this occur? Read the points made. It is encouraged, and vindictive women are aided and abetted by the system.
Let's answer questions one by one:
Well, yeah maybe there is something built-in to our system where a woman thinks she can get away with such a thing. She obviously did get away with it for several years.
Well the proof is certainly in the pudding, isn't it?
However, did you stop to consider that there may be cultural "built-ins" into our system that might make a person named as a father never bother to check?
Legal obstacles, rather, deliberately erected. The point has been made that 30 to 90 days without a child support check results in swift and summary action with even ultra-liberal groups like the ACLU decrying the lack of due process; However, fail to allow visitation, and the case can grind away for years.
There "could be" all kinds of things culturally endemic that would lead to this sort of thing happening.
If the look into this is not focused with the intent to eliminate them, the statement is pointless.
I brought up other examples, such as why does it seem like old people get scammed all the time (or at least you hear about it a lot). Well, consider that maybe old people are vulnerable to that because of cultural reasons, like they are lonely and not included in the family as much as they used to be.. that make them suseptible. Then consider that scam artists are aware of that, pick up on it, and use the vulnerablilitites for nefarious purposes.
You answer your own question. Fathers are considered unimportant intruders in their own families, just like old people are ostracized, and placed outside of the protection of law.
How could this woman make a bet that this guy wouldn't ask for a paternity test, or at least ask to see the child?
The article said he did. She bet that it would take years. It did. She bet, she won.
Did she know something about him as an individual that is not mentioned in the article?
Probably knew he was brainwashed with chivalry, and would do the honorable thing, and took advantage of it, her being unscrupulous and without conscience.
Something that made her think she could pull off this scam?
Maybe witnessing woman after woman denying visitation - she wondered, "Hey, they don't even see this kid, I wonder if it could be raised to the next level?" Looks like it sure worked.
Or did she make a bet that culturally, she had a good shot at him not snooping around and asking a lot of questions by making assumptions about men in general?
Not a great leap in intuitive though necessary to know that the hostility of the system to the male would work in her favor.
Either way, it's an unusual case.
Not really. The punch line is certainly unusual, but it sounds like the normal process and procedure was followed. What it is is a sorry indictment of the system that such things could occur even when there is no child, because the woman's word is believed unquestioningly, and the man is regarded as a monster, and presumed guilty, and given no protection of law.
In the case of old people getting scams there have been numerous attempts to warn them and try to mitigate the risks for them (in addition to prosecuting the criminals). Wouldn't it be a good idea to find out if men are suseptible to this type of scam because of culturally ingrained reasons?
An interesting intellectual exercise, to be sure, but I rather suspect that good old fashioned swift, severe, and certain punishment would be a far better deterrent rather than doing some backhanded blaming of the victim; not to mention fixing the system so it really was gender blind instead of infected with cancerous bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote:
Well, yeah maybe there is something built-in to our system where a woman thinks she can get away with such a thing.
The Gonzo Kid gave a whole litany of "somethings", so I'll leave it alone and look forward to reading your response to him.
I brought up other examples, such as why does it seem like old people get scammed all the time (or at least you hear about it a lot).
The BIG difference I see between this case and the examples you offered is government involvement in the scam. Not only was the man "gullible" but so was the child-support industry. The case has been made here, and I'm sure I don't have to repeat it you, that most everyone involved in the industry has financial, political and social incentives to remain "gullible" to the claims of a woman and disinctives to be skeptical.
Even if you don't accept that argument, the fact remains that the system in this case was vulnerable to manipulation by an unscrupulous.
All questions aside of the socialization and culpability of gullible men who are careless about where they put their genitals, the government has no business being taken in in these matters. Individual men may be naive but the system has ample evidence that paternity fraud occurs and is failing to conduct due diligence in order not to be a party to fraud.
This aspect of the case is a failure of the child-support system, to be resolved by procedural reform not social reform.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to find out if men are suseptible to this type of scam because of culturally ingrained reasons?
Undoubtedly they are, but is that a good road take in the search for eliminating it? Whatever the details you come up with, the broad outline will be men being too trusting of a woman's word and possibly intimidated by a hostile bureaucratic system.
How would we counter that? A massive public awareness campaign?
"Men, she may look like an angel but every woman is a potential, lying, thieving slut! Always get a paternity test."
Maybe we could have police officers go into middle schools and do lectures with hand puppets.
So, we have two plausible contributing factors, systemic and cultural, that aren't mutually exclusive. That gives us two possible roads to a solution - campaigning for system reform or embarking on a campaign to increase distrust between the sexes. Which road do you want to try first?
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok fine. Fraud should be prosecuted as fraud, whether that's civil or criminal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey I didn't say no prosecution.But you had a guy right here on this thread saying he considered having sex with a woman AFTER he was informed that she might be up to no good. That to me is a culturally ingrained problem which contributes to fraud happening.
And I'm not blaming the victim. When people get warnings about how to protect themselves from home robbery, tips how to deter that, is it blaming the victim when they don't heed the warnings and their home is burglarized? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, we have two plausible contributing factors, systemic and cultural, that aren't mutually exclusive. That gives us two possible roads to a solution - campaigning for system reform or embarking on a campaign to increase distrust between the sexes. Which road do you want to try first?
My position is one of supporting universal DNA testing which I believe would eliminate 99% of paternity fraud. This would fall into the category of "system reform". Anyway, how will we find out if fraud has occured or not if we don't investigate? So why not do it early?
People scam the goverment all the time for welfare benefits when they don't meet the requirments, including claiming kids they don't have, or who are not in their custody, so yes, there needs to be alot more diligence on the government side. How someone can get the government to help her collect "child support" for a non existent child is embarrassing is a mystery. It seems to me that it is reasonable to assume that one parent would at least confirm there IS a child before complying with the order. This case is perhaps a wake-up call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote:
My position is one of supporting universal DNA testing which I believe would eliminate 99% of paternity fraud. This would fall into the category of "system reform". Anyway, how will we find out if fraud has occured or not if we don't investigate? So why not do it early?
(I take it you're backing off from the "Let's have a public information campaign for cuckolds like we do for old people and telemarketers" position. :))
Yes, you've stated that position repeatedly. The first couple of times, people here brought up the legitimate questions of privacy it raises, both of involuntary release of medical information and of Big Brotherish government intrusion into private relationships. Each time, you ignored those people completely. If memory serves, the last time you brought it up, you were ignored.
If you can't even address the honest concerns of people here who are likely to be sympathetic to the concept, how much chance do you think your position has out in the real world where most people really don't want to know unpleasant truths? Are you waiting for society to evolve to your level of pragmatic rationality?
How someone can get the government to help her collect "child support" for a non existent child is embarrassing is a mystery.
Again, The Gonzo Kid has given a detailed possible solution to that mystery. I'm still looking forward to reading your response.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote: My position is one of supporting universal DNA testing which I believe would eliminate 99% of paternity fraud. This would fall into the category of "system reform". Anyway, how will we find out if fraud has occured or not if we don't investigate? So why not do it early?
(I take it you're backing off from the "Let's have a public information campaign for cuckolds like we do for old people and telemarketers" position. :))
No, not at all. People should be informed of possible risks. Look, people are always quick to advise women to be careful who they go out with, where they go, be careful or on the lookout in this or that situation ... So why wouldn't the same advise be appropos for men too?
Yes, you've stated that position repeatedly. The first couple of times, people here brought up the legitimate questions of privacy it raises, both of involuntary release of medical information and of Big Brotherish government intrusion into private relationships. Each time, you ignored those people completely. If memory serves, the last time you brought it up, you were ignored.
I have not ignored it. I answered it two ways. One: I said BOTH parents should be DNA paternity/maternity tested. That addresses the fairness issue. Two: I said I believe the test could be devised so that ONLY that information can be obtained and no other information.
We agree to blood testing for get a marriage license and we trust that that is only testing for STD's. We don't have a fit about what might be done with that blood, whether the gov. agency plans to do additional non-authorized test on it.
People sumbit to random urine testing for drugs as a condition of their jobs as well.
I agree there are privacy issues. However, I think those can be overcome. Anyway, as I said, in order to test for paternity later on, one would have to submit to the same test, so why not do it earlier and in a setting that is more standard operating procedure for both parents?
If you can't even address the honest concerns of people here who are likely to be sympathetic to the concept, how much chance do you think your position has out in the real world where most people really don't want to know unpleasant truths? Are you waiting for society to evolve to your level of pragmatic rationality?
I did address them in other threads. See above. I don't pretend to have all the answers or have everything all worked out to the letter. But I have faith that there ARE reasonable, objective, pragmatic solutions to many of the problems we talk about. I have faith that people want to live in a just and fair society but we just have to figure out a way to avoid the most common pitfalls. This will be an ongoing process, its not a job that one day will just be "done". We have to keep working on things. Right now paternity fraud is a hot button issue and I've proposed what I think (in my personal opinion) would be a way to solve 99% of the problem and still be fair to everyone especially to children. My plan is markedly different from many of the feminists you hear who never suggest universal paternity testing (or at least I've never heard on in public support that). Instead many want to make paternity testing of one's own (supposed) child illegal for men! I've read several stories about this, they were here at this site several months ago.
It seems to me that if men'r rights activists are taking the high road elsewhere saying they WANT to be equally a part of their children's lives, the it would be better to be consistent on this front to and appear like men WANT to know who their children are so they can parent them and so they can treat all children, even those not their own, as having certain rights ... the right to know who their father is and be parented by him. This would dovetail nicely with the other MR fatherhood issues. To me (and this is my opinion) it seems incongrous if men don't support DNA parental testing because it makes it seems like MR advocates don't promote men knowing, but then want to reserve the right to use paternity later on when the child is much older to get out of a situation. It seems incongrous to me. It's a PR thing at the least, and a child's rights thing at the heart of the matter.
I'm not downplaying the privacy issues but given our current technology, how else is a person to know for sure or contest paternity? I feel it could be done while still protecting privacy at least to a degree that is already acceptable to most people, and I feel it can be fair by doing DNA testing for both parents. Like anything else, or government can use it improperly, but I think we can make reasonable precautions against that. We already have in many areas. (Anyway, anyone can collect biological samples from you at any time and use them for nefarious purposes if they are intent on doing it).
I have my personal opinion on this from being involved with the Adoptees Rights movement. I have a strong feeling that people deserve to know their biolgocial parentage. I'm well aware some people don't think this is important and even consider it frivolous. Nevertheless, that is my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 18, @03:46PM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
I have a few questions
What is the POINT of DNA testing the mother? There is no doubt she is the mother. Maternity fraud is an oxymoron.
Second, how are you going to make mother fess up to who daddy is, especially if they are of the breed of women who doesn't want a male in her life, be damned what is or isn't good for the child?
And if the "good of children" is a public policy issue, why worry about privacy at all when it can be declared that the right of a child to have its needs met outweighs the wants of a man or woman's privacy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the POINT of DNA testing the mother? There is no doubt she is the mother. Maternity fraud is an oxymoron.
Not its not. There have been several high profile cases of people getting home with the wrong baby and raising it for years until they find out the baby was switched in the hospital. In addition, a positive DNA link to a mother would be useful in adoption situatons were both parents could be traceable in case of medical necessity.
Second, how are you going to make mother fess up to who daddy is, especially if they are of the breed of women who doesn't want a male in her life, be damned what is or isn't good for the child?
First off, you cannot devise a system that is 100% fraud proof. You cannot let that fact deter from making the best policies we can. It is true if a woman wants too, she can have a child without a man, and our society accepts this by supporting and endorsing sperm and egg donation and anonymous parenting in general with closed adoption. In addition, our media for years has made a spectacle out of single women having children and keeping the identity of the father a secret, presumably from the child as well. This is portrayed in media as sort of quaint and cute and is never portrayed as lack of care for the rights of the child or the father. So, overall, people IMO have come to accept that this is OKAY. In addition, most people see nothing wrong with sperm and egg banks, and purposefully creating new humans with the intent of secreting their biological origin from them. Most people think of the child as a person with no rights whatsoever, a direct outgrowth of the abortion phenomenon. This is convoluted thinking because we have ample evidence from Adoptees that people feel they have rights to know information about their own creation.
And if the "good of children" is a public policy issue, why worry about privacy at all when it can be declared that the right of a child to have its needs met outweighs the wants of a man or woman's privacy?
This is precisely the debate going on now in the Adoptee Rights movement. In addition there have been several recent lawsuits by people conceived anonymously through sperm and/or egg donation suing the institutions for records about donars that would give them information about their biological ancestry. I expect we'll hear more and more about this in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote:
No, not at all. People should be informed of possible risks. Look, people are always quick to advise women to be careful who they go out with, where they go, be careful or on the lookout in this or that situation ... So why wouldn't the same advise be appropos for men too?
You're going to have to give me a fairly specific instance of how this would work, because I honestly don't see it. I think any public information campaign about this would have to resort to the terror tactics of current DV awareness campaigns - "Every man is a potential batterer!" to have any impact at all."
It would also have to take into account the potential negative consequences to a man who voiced his suspicions - ruining the relationship, being perceived as a cad, etc. They combine to produce a chilling effect. While that's true, it makes me cringe to think about putting more of that type of talk into public discourse.
I have not ignored it. I answered it two ways.
Then I apologize. I have a specific memory of a thread where two people raised these questions and I waited for you to answer them and you never did. If you say you did in other threads, I accept that.
One: I said BOTH parents should be DNA paternity/maternity tested. That addresses the fairness issue. Two: I said I believe the test could be devised so that ONLY that information can be obtained and no other information.
The first issue never occurred to me, but some people do have odd ideas of fairness. I don't see a need for it unless hospitals really are mixing up babies.
It seems to me the second issue is dealable. Michigan's Baby Drop Off law has procedures for dealing with DNA information after a test that seem pretty straightforward.
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page= getObject&objName=mcl-712-13&highlight=
I agree there are privacy issues. However, I think those can be overcome.. Anyway, as I said, in order to test for paternity later on, one would have to submit to the same test, so why not do it earlier and in a setting that is more standard operating procedure for both parents?
I don't know if those issues can be overcome and I don't know if they should be. I'm more comfortable with the government staying out of it until one of the parties brings them into it. My favorite idea is that no child support order could ever be implemented without a positive test. But we're talking about a system that thinks it's too much trouble to even find a man before declaring him a father and slapping a payment schedule on him. The bureaucracy would fight such a proposal tooth and nail.
And that is part of the reason, I think, that this proposition doesn't get much play here. It's a band-aid. The way the system treats defrauded men is entirely consistent with and typical of the way it treats men throughout family law issues. This proposal leaves that untouched and doesn't address any of those issues of bias.
Just as you do, Lorianne. Your reasons are your own but you seem to not want to touch that subject with a 10 foot pole. Until you do, your contributions here will remain trivial, because that's what this place is about.
(You wrote more about PR strategy, but I'm out of time. I'll address it if I get more.)
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote: No, not at all. People should be informed of possible risks. Look, people are always quick to advise women to be careful who they go out with, where they go, be careful or on the lookout in this or that situation ... So why wouldn't the same advise be appropos for men too?
Larry wrote: You're going to have to give me a fairly specific instance of how this would work, because I honestly don't see it. I think any public information campaign about this would have to resort to the terror tactics of current DV awareness campaigns - "Every man is a potential batterer!" to have any impact at all."
Well I wasn't specifically referring to PS ad campaigns with that comment though it would apply. (Similar to signs in subways warning people to keep an eye on their wallets.) An example would be warnings to women not to go into a private room with a man, or accept a ride with man she doesn't know well, to avoid a possible rape or or otherwise being physcically coerced into something. The premise is the woman should take precautions to prevent another person the opportunity of doing something adverse. So, what I was referring to is: Why wouldn't the same pre-emptive advise go for men as well? Don't put yourself in a position of giving another person the opportunity to take advantage of you. It's the same sort of advice... pre-emptive. So, culturally, we could engrain in men, don't put yourself in a position that could lead to possible attempts at illegal behaviour against you (just as we advise women to take steps to pre-empt the crime of rape). This is not the same as saying it is the person's "fault" for the crime to suggest that precaution is warranted. So, if we know that paternity fraud is a possibility, that it happens (just as other crimes happen) we should not shy away from advising men on methods of pre-empting the crime from happening. One is to avoid sex or make sure one is protected. Another would be to request a paternity test upon being named as a father. In otherwords, advise on pre-empting a potential crime by taking away the opportunity for it to occur before the fact, the same advise we give people in all kinds of other situations (such as advising people on how to secure their homes against burglary).
Larry wrote: It would also have to take into account the potential negative consequences to a man who voiced his suspicions - ruining the relationship, being perceived as a cad, etc. They combine to produce a chilling effect. While that's true, it makes me cringe to think about putting more of that type of talk into public discourse.
I agree that at present asking for a paternity test would probably produce negative perceptions. However, my proposal is for universal testing as SOP (standard operating proceedure). That way, no one has to specifically request it. A corollary example is the blood test to check for STD's to get a marriage license. The rationale was much the same for this. If it is SOP, no one has to ask a his/her intented spouse to present a clean bill of sexual health, and so avoids the "cad" effect you described.
Another example is the age old (now anachronistic) practice of announcing bans before marriage ... a time period for people to come forward with dirt one or both the intended spouses, so that the spouses themselves don't have to directly challenge each other's truthfulness/honor. The idea was that they would fess up beforehand any indiscrestions in the knowledge that if they didn't, someone else may come up with the dirty laundry before the wedding. The idea was to provoke voluntary truthfulness up front yet allow the participants to save face from having to directly challenge the honor of the other party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I was in high school, a female friend of mine (also in high school and still a friend) warned me that a girl (extremely attractive, I will add) that we knew had bragged to other girls that she had had sex with several high school boys and then told them that she was pregnant. She told them she needed $800 to get an abortion (probably the equivalent of about $5K now). They all paid up.
A few months later I was with her, after I'd been drinking, and she tried to seduce me. I actually considered having sex with her (ah, the raging hormones of youth and the stupidity of drinking too much). Fortunately, a good friend of mine (a guy, who's also still a good friend) dragged me off.
Whew!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the department of justice wonders why women are ending up dead?
Its because of their irresponsible actions of not persuing justice. In the end it creates crime and the justice system is soley responsible for it. They are such cowards to not prosicute their own meal ticket its burning everyone. Justice is dead.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> And the department of justice wonders why women are ending up dead?
Abused spouses of both genders may want to kill their abusers. Yet we heard only about abused women who kill in our media.
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Yet we heard only about abused women who kill in our media."
Why is that do you suppose?
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 13, @01:36AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
(((Why is that do you suppose?")))
Dan.
I know it was a rehtorical question but I just had to ansewer it anyway.
It is (as if we didn't allready know.) Because when a Man kills an abuseive wife, Since there is "No such thing as "Husband abuse" " it is just an excuse for a dirty, rotten, evil Man to commit murder against a Woman.
Conversely, since "Men are evil" a Woman allready has a built-in excuse to murder an "abuseive" husband. This of course whether he was abuseive or NOT.
Any one else think that Women should be called the 007 gender?
You know, "licensed to KILL"!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 13, @12:43PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"Any one else think that Women should be called the 007 gender? "
An apt descriptor in my humble opinion, the license to kill and what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 13, @01:39AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Anon.
I understand and share your frustration.
But "Hung by her nipples"?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
