|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The title of the article is:
Australian man cashes in on ex-wife's deceit
Cashes in? The title makes is sound like the man is cheating her! What a spin! She lies to him saying that two of her three children are his and then he cashes in!
Then the last sentence reads:
The Melbourne court was told that the decision was not intended to punish Magill's ex-wife for being unfaithful.
Oh! We have to be sure that we are not punishing her! Unreal. What bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, the headline was offensive and the last comment at the end was a bit off.
The middle part was a piece of good news though.
Having read other stories where men are asked to pay up even if the child is not theirs, at last a court has taken the view (not about the unfaitfulness) that he was deceived and therefore was given restitution.
A principle has been established.
Unfortunately the title may be a clue to how this 'loophole' could be closed - New Law to Stop Men Cashing in..etc'
I sincerley hope not, though in the UK there is a debate going on to try to stop men even getting to take DNA tests or as the spin puts it, stopping 'Fathers' getting out of paying Child Support.
Of course there is a presuppositon here - 'Father' - since without the DNA test that is still in question...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 23, @03:44PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"I sincerley hope not, though in the UK there is a debate going on to try to stop men even getting to take DNA tests or as the spin puts it, stopping 'Fathers' getting out of paying Child Support. "
The UK appears to be a big violator of human rights lately. First freedom of speech. Now banning DNA testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 23, @11:31PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
This is in the works in Australia too. Seems they are having more difficulty justifying hitting any old man up for child support so they fix the "problem" by preventing men from learning that they have been duped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...Seems they are having more difficulty justifying hitting any old man up for child support so they fix the "problem" by preventing men from learning that they have been duped.
What more evidence do we need that women not only want unilateral control over reproductive rights, but not responsibilities, which are assigned to men and enforced by the state (through its "male" hierarchical law enforcement apparatus, with what feminists hypocritically consider an acceptable use of force), they also want control over the knowledge of whose DNA was used. They want the right to commit paternity fraud, in essence, and they want the strong arm of the law to enforce their wishes. So much for the illusion that women never condone the use of force. When the power of the state is used to implement the feminist agenda of privilege at soneone else's expense, the feminist criticism of "male hierarchical" power structures is revoked, apparently. What a profound sense of entitlement feminists have.
So far, no feminist has challenged me on this glaringly obvious hole in feminist thinking. Child support isn't nurtured from wrongfully named fathers or otherwise obtained by some feminine process of consensus. This is a further example of the thesis that feminists use force--the same old "male" hierarchical power structures--against men to deprive men of their rights.
As I've mentioned before, no one cares if women have their independence--virtually by definition, their independence is no one else's business. I'm not interested in what feminists do personally--if the personal is political, then without loss of generality I focus on the political, the greatest good for the greatest number. A public policy problem arises from the strident in-your-face entitled independence that comes with a hand in the public till. This utilitarian problem is the problem I'm interested in (I don't suggest that others share my interests).
The slogan, "the best interests of the child" has managed to undermine any attempt at applying utilitarian principles; in fact, that's its purpose. Instead of asking, what does the greatest good for the greatest number of men, women, and children, feminists have developed public policy--policy that should be informed by the utilitarian principle--according to the best interests of the individual child, over the greatest good for the greatest number, and over the rights of the deceived putative father. I suggest examining the notion of "the best interests of the child" in light of the utilitarian principle; I contend that the present system of defrauding fathers by criminalizing the knowledge of the real father cannot possibly do the greatest good for the greatest number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Olaf, you are right on the money here. This whole situation is indicative of special interest leniency gone mad.
Hey, am I the only one that feels leftist style feminism is a genuine threat to our national security? Take one disenfranchised American citizen, male - physicist, another disenfranchised American citizen, male – Sub Captain, each paying forced spousal support to unfaithful ex-wives; bring in the American Emissary to Iraq, the very same guy who not more than a year ago lost his legal battle when the judge ruled he must abide by the court order and continue to pay child support to the two young children his ex-wife conceived by virtue of DNA that was proven to be not his; throw in the scheduled meeting of all three, at a government conference on 'Science, peace and the Middle East', in Dublin, where the second car bombing this week by the IFM (Irish Feminist Movement) has killed 7 of their colleagues, all male…
My God, man! In what book did you read this?
Book? Who said anything about a book?
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"IFM (Irish Feminist Movement) "
Mitchell, tell us more about this. I thought (being a 'good' Irish Catholic boy) that all car bombings in Ireland were the work of the IRA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It really is fiction. Sorry for the confusion!
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I'm relieved. I thought that perhaps the gender war had taken on serious violent overtones. Though I do expect this eventually, I do not look forward to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nor do I, my friend.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 25, @10:37PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
It is about time someone made women like this accountable for their decisions. They have lied to the man they named as the father, the real father and the government. Most importantly, they have lied to and deceived their children. Everyone talks about what is in the best interests of the child, isn't it in the child's best interest for them to know the truth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This man was wronged from so many angles, and from this woman has endured emotional stress that will never heal, yet the paper states that he cashed in? Unless I’m mistaken, he’s paid maintenance. Wouldn’t this be more like he was paid back money defrauded from him?
Oh, now I get it: If my house is stormed by armed thugs, I’m tied up, all of my possessions stolen, yet, through restitution, the perps pay me back for some of the loss, I’m suddenly a lottery winner! I guess all the victims of felonious crime really just don’t know how lucky they are.
Disgusting, to say the least.
On the bright side: At least this demonstrates that the Australian judicial system has a piece of a slice of a pie from an oven in a factory on a horizon that bakes decency in this respect (now, that’s a bad, bad, bad metaphor).
Way to go, mate!
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
