NEW CAMPAIGN: Protest Fox's New Reality Show 'Bad Dads'!
April 28th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesFox recently announced its intention to launch a new reality show called Bad Dads. According to Reuters, in Bad Dads Jim Durham, director of the National Child Support Center, "functions as a sort of 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' for tracking deadbeats...[Durham's role is as] an avenger of penniless single mothers [who] hunts down deadbeat dads and forces them to pay child support...
"In the pilot, a financially destitute mom is contrasted with her wealthy ex-husband, who is living the high life. Durham confronts the man at his country club to shake him down in front his friends. It's ambush reality TV."
According to Reuters, Durham will target fathers who are behind on their child support by "making their lives miserable -- foreclosing on their house, repossessing their car. He will squeeze them..."
To send a protest email and fax to the leading executives at Fox, click here.
We oppose Bad Dads for six reasons:
- Bad Dads publicly humiliates children of broken families by depicting their fathers as not loving or caring for them.
- Bad Dads unfairly depicts divorced fathers as uncaring and selfish, when research clearly shows that most divorced dads pay their child support and remain a part of their children's lives, often under difficult circumstances.
- The records of the child support agencies are notorious for being riddled with errors--they cannot be relied upon to determine who is a legitimate "deadbeat" and who isn't.
- Bad Dads singles out fathers for shaming, when U.S. Census data shows that noncustodial fathers are more likely to pay their child support than noncustodial mothers.
- Bad Dads glorifies private collection companies whose practices are so abusive that even the National Organization for Women has condemned them and urged women to avoid them.
- Television is rife with negative, misleading and unfair depictions of fathers--Bad Dads promises to be one of the worst examples.
I am partnering with Fathers & Families and the American Coalition for Fathers & Children in a campaign to ask Fox to cancel Bad Dads. In general, the Fox network has usually been fair to fathers. This show is an unfortunate exception, and we hope Fox will soon understand this.
To send a protest email and fax to the leading executives at Fox, click here.
Fox has already had the opportunity to resolve this matter quietly--a representative of the True Equality Network says that when they recently contacted a leading Fox executive to express their concerns about Bad Dads, the executive was "very rude" and "hung up on them."
Again, to send a protest email and fax to the leading executives at Fox, click here.
To learn more about our campaign, visit our campaign page here.
Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com
"));
19 queries. 0.553 seconds.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Bad Dads - Very bad idea for a show.
How much lower can the American society go?
April 28th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
They say that money talks, so perhaps we should also let any potential advertisers for this program know how we feel about it.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Why this couldnt have been called "Bad Parents" is beyond me. Why not focus on all deadbeats, male and female? If most of the deadbeats are dads then show mostly dads, but dont pretend none of these people are women.
I also notice that, according to the linked article, the so-called hero in this show takes 34% of what he collects! Wow, what a man! What a benefactor to single mothers and children everywhere! He's like Robin Hood, except he steals from the rich, and the poor, and probably everyone in between as well.
Now, no reasonable person objects to child support, as long as it doesnt have the non-custodial parent living in a cardboard box over a grate. The problem is that , if the description of the pilot is anything to go by, this show will portray only the most extreme examples, namely those where the woman is dirt-poor and the man is filthy rich. They will have to do this as squeezing some poor guy for an unrealistic slice of his income wont make for very sympathetic television. Only the worst non-paying dads will be profiled and in the minds of much of the audience they will be taken to be not the exception but rather the rule.
Another case of the media irresponsibly mis-representing reality in order to turn a quick buck. Still, executive producer JD Roth ("The Biggest Loser," "Beauty and the Geek"), is a married man, and who knows, the way marriages go these days, he may find his own dog biting his posterior in the near future. Now that would be one episode i would definitely watch..
April 28th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Maybee we should do a reality show, showing crackhead mothers.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Oh, my how shocking!
April 28th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Percentage wise, isn't it true that men pay their child support, more than women pay their child support.
We should track down and confront the women that don't pay their support. (Reality show style)
April 28th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
The only thing good that comes from this is that fathers' rights believers see that not all that is conservative fights for us. We have enemies on our right and our left. We should not hold ourselves to one side either left or right.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
By the way, Glenn,how about coming up with a form that doesnt need a U.S phone number for verification? After all, if this crap gets picked up its going to end up down here in Aus, giving some Australians a twisted view of non-custodial fathers. It's a kind of feminist trickle down effect- what gets spewed onto men in the U.S, eventually drips onto the heads of Australian men.
M.C
April 28th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
FOX does more father and husband bashing prime time shows than any other network... by far.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I shotgunned the protest letter out to my circle of friends... so far 4 or 5 have replied they sent a protest.
Gunner Retired
April 28th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
I called them all. Signed the form. Ready to protest.
Thank you Glenn.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
There are certainly some deadbeats out there that should be held to account. The system is a joke for the committed deadbeats. That said, I agree that to turn this into a generalization or some sort of sport does men a disservice.
Perhaps for every deadbeat "Dog the Bounty Hunter" episode they could do an "Extreme Home Makeover" episode with a father that has been systematically alienated from his children by their mother with full support from the system. Opening the children's eyes to the lies and manipulation of the alienating mother, and her use of the biased system to serve her purpose, while reuniting the children with their loving father would be heart warming, good for the kids (more good than getting them child support) and provide a sense of justice.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
This show makes me want to go for a little drive around Hollywood (seven miles from my house).
http://tinyurl.com/4lhnb4
April 28th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
One of the signals of growing decadence in the roman empire was the presentation of brutality as entertainment.
How were the players chosen? They were individuals who, somehow, had violated the tenets of the time in some way.
How is this any different? We already know the targets are "bad". They deserve exactly what they get don't they?
As commercial entertainment providers - including print media - grow even more devoted to winning female audiences this form of voyeurism will continue to grow.
The personal is political. If women rule the world there'll be no more wars. Unfortunately at an individual level it will be brutal. And it will all be presented on TV as entertainment.
It's worth remembering the applause that multitudes of women afforded Lorena Bobbit.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
The state's ability to separate the deadbeat dads from the deadbroke dads continues to be proven highly problematic.
When they actually do get a "deadbeat" dad, far too often there are other issues, like mom is putting the CS money up her nose or she is wholly out of compliance with the parenting plan and child custody court order. He is more a disgruntled dad than a willful deadbeat dad.
DanH
April 28th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
gwallan
One of the signals of growing decadence in the roman empire was the presentation of brutality as entertainment.
MCA, welcome to the new matriarchy!!
April 28th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Mass media...
A few years ago a California woman chatted up a fifteen year old Aussie boy on the internet. When he turned sixteen she deserted her husband and children and came to Australia to shack up with him(Illegal in any state apart from Western Australia).
He is now totally estranged from his family. Couple of years later he's seventeen and she's had a child to him and taken him back to the US thus removing him from any possible support network.
Her lifestyle has been wholly paid for by selling the story to various Australian womens magazines, the most recent installment being a New Idea(readership in the hundreds of thousands) presentation that was basically a "beautiful baby" story . These magazines know what their audience wants. And their almost exclusively female readership obviously believes this is just it and a bit.
I think this is something I'm just going to have to learn to put up with. Clearly many women view the abuse of a male by another female as nothing more than entertainment. What should we expect in a culture that pillories damaged men and laughs even harder if the damage is inflicted by a woman?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
MY LETTER:
In an era when enlightened persons across the political spectrum decry mass media depictions of fathers as buffoons or in other negative, stereotypical roles, FOX plans to unleash the most breathtaking, the most vile, demonstration of male bashing in memory, "Bad Dads."
What message are you sending to our children, especially the unfortunate children of divorced parents, when you parade a cavalcade of unfit fathers who don't give a damn about their kids on prime time television, for nothing more than the crass entertainment of the masses? The message is unmistakable: fathers are less fit parents than mothers; fathers are inherently untrustworthy; fathers are contemptible. These stereotypes are, of course, grotesquely unfair; indeed, immoral, and FOX should be ashamed.
And what message are you sending little boys when you show their role models as despicable human beings? That they were born into a flawed gender; that they, themselves, must be flawed just because they were born male.
Fathers have a difficult enough time being parents nowadays without FOX manufacturing such terribly unfair distortions. Most fathers are working longer hours than ever just to support their families, typically sacrificing quality time with their kids to keep them clothed and fed. The last thing we need is a major television network unfairly damning dad so that it can sell soap.
With this horrible, horrible exercise in misandry, FOX is thumbing its nose at the public interest. I hope FOX decides it is better than this.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
...Will they will debut this show on Father's Day, which used to be a day to honor fathers but now is a day to denigrate them even more than the other 364 days of the year?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
re: With this horrible, horrible exercise in misandry, FOX is thumbing its nose at the public interest. I hope FOX decides it is better than this.
...and the Fox letter reader asks, "What's a misandry?"
April 29th, 2008 at 12:23 am
I wonder how many of our lurking feminists join in on some of these campaigns??
April 29th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Judges are callously kicking children out of their homes so their will be extra money to pay lawyers and court costs. The home is the last American investment. Nobody can afford to save. The Cops TV show showed America in a tastless way to the world that America had severe problems with the decay in families. FOX and the family courts are now teaming up to show how low they can go to embarass struggling parents of their humanity. No child will want to have their parent shown in such a poor light. It brings no value except to the judges who have stolen these children's home and laugh at the misdeeds they have done.
No to FOX!
Marcy Ganz
San Diego, CA
http://crispe.org
April 29th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Let's gather all of our evidence for those fathers who have had their lives ripped apart by the abuser violating child custody and playing games with the children. The real dark side. Send all of this information to Fox.
On top of that, let us contact the sponsors for Fox and then let us contact all of the labor unions that work for those sponsors. UAW, Teamsters, IBEW, SAG, AFTRA, Those who build whirlpool appliances or Cars. Those who already see their lives ripped apart by a corrupt system. Let's have the unions strike to let the sponsors know that Fox's show either sinks before Pilot or a prolonged strike stays in place. Let's unite the workers and halt this tragedy before it airs.
As a father who paid over $30k in travel expenses to have my rights continually violated we need to unite to stop the games played with our children, to take the oppressors and abusers and put them down and put them down hard.
I'm sure that Fox will reconsider airing this tragedy if they realize that they are going to lose advertisers.
Let's also call on major league baseball and the NFLPA. All professional sports who air on Fox needs to tear up their contracts and get a better deal with CBS, NBC or ABC.
Here is reality TV below, a father who travels over 500 miles to see his only child has his rights continually violated.
The cops allow it, the prosecutors dance around calling criminal interference with custody a "civil matter" and the courts don't put a stop to it. The father isn't compensated for his time lost with his child, the 10s of thousands expended in travel costs aren't forced to be paid back in either criminal restitution or contempt penalties but the Government wants to bully out child support and the female abuser thumbs her nose at the courts, the law and the child. State Sponsored Terrorism. Chew on this FOX, it doesn't get anymore real than this.
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/Exhibit_1_(InterferenceRptFeb162007).PDF
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/Exhibit_2_(InterferenceObstructingKidnap).PDF
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/Exhibit_3a_(MatMortonFelonyAbuseReport).PDF
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/Exhibit_3b_(DFSUnsubtantiatedChonologicalNarrative).PDF
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/Exhibit_4_(JudgementOfContempt).PDF
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/Exhibit_5_(ViolationJudgmentofContempt).PDF
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/Exhibit_6_(FalseReportPlantingDope).PDF
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/Exhibit_7_(InterferenceWCustodyMyBirthday).PDF
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/Exhibit_8a_(InterferenceWCustody).PDF
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/Exhibit_8b_(VOOP_At_TimeOfInterferenceWithCustody).PDF
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/Exhibit_9_(ExcusesToInterfereWithCustody).PDF
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/AbundantlyClearSheIsUnWilling.wav
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/MaliciouslyUsedOOP.wav
http://www.judicialaccountabilityproject.org/download/MothersCourseOfConduct.wav
"The Diary of a Patient Man, A Father's Struggle" A Made for TV movie that Fox SHOULD air!
April 29th, 2008 at 3:32 am
I'm sure that the fathers Fox pick will deserve any vilification heaped on them, (it'll be no big deal to find enough of them for the series) but the obvious criticism is that people will simply be confirmed in their prejudice that the typical deadbeat dad is awash with money and spending it on himself, his wife and kids from 2nd marriage and ignoring child support obligations.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Malcolm,
I think you'll find the vast majority of us don't really have a problem with the legitimately deadbeat dads legitimately being legitimately villified.
What we have the problem with is, as you and so many others have stated, is that the show will focus only on the men, ignoring the deadbeat moms... and cast ALL men in a stereotypical light as schmucks who cannot be trsuted to abide by their obligations to their children (which the vast majority of men actually do pay their court ordered child support when they're able to meet the amount).
Statistically speaking (based on data vice wishful speculation) non-custodial mothers are more frequently the non paying parent, even though they're statistically (again, data) the less frequent non-custodial parent.
The show will doubtlessly ignore this travesty altogether.
Gunner Retired
April 29th, 2008 at 3:47 am
Unfortunately, Fox has an ethos which likes to embrace and exaggerate such shock topics, without regard to the social impacts of doing so.
Therefore, the best approach may be not to try to deter them, but rather give them some ideas for shows which engage in some much-needed depiction of female behavior in America. Some ideas:
"Sperm Trappers" - reality show about women who trap men in pregnancy -- show depicts man finding out that he's been sperm-trapped, and women talking about how they did it
"Killer Moms" - show about moms who have killed their kids and husbands.
"Scam-me Court" - reality show about families getting looted in U.S. family courts.
If you want to control the behavior of scum-journalists, you need to lead them to a putrid scum pond, or in this case, several putrid scum ponds.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:02 am
AnonymousPamphleteer, you might want to add "Seduce-A-Teen" chronicling the efforts of female teachers to have sex with male high school students, severely messing up the boys and destroying her own marriage in the process.
And of course the women serve no jail time. Some of these women will decide to have the child and then collect child support from the teenage victims of their statutory rape (and that is the law -- adult women CAN collect child support from the teenage boys they raped).
April 29th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Marcy Ganz Says: FOX and the family courts are now teaming up to show how low they can go to embarass struggling parents of their humanity.
Doc Says The family courts have nothing to do with Fox and this program. This is a joint venture between Fox and one private child support enforcement agency. Whether the parents are "struggling" remains to be seen. I would suspect that the parents that will be exposed are not struggling financially.
Marcy Ganz Says: No child will want to have their parent shown in such a poor light. It brings no value except to the judges who have stolen these children's home and laugh at the misdeeds they have done.
Doc Says Again, judges have nothing to do with this television program.
Doc
April 29th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Create a stereotype and then capitalize on it. Could this be done to anyone but men?
And if more women are percentage wise "dead beats" why isn't the show about women?
April 29th, 2008 at 8:21 am
we can do a show that tells stories of men/boys who were falselly accussed of rape, and were in effect "lynched" by the people that these vile twisted girls/women told.
call it "The twisted sister's and their violence by proxy chroncles"
.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Maybe if they do REAL research they will figure out that this is a bad idea. But they won't. I hope this petition works. It is just amazing that they will focus on the smaller percentage of men that don't pay. How about a show that is about men that pay thier support, visit the kids, tolerates an ex-wife that tries to alienate the kids, watches the ex-wife's new boyfriend riding his new Harley that the CS payments bought and then laying around yelling at the poor guy's kids. THAT is reality tv.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Bill C, excellent point. The problem with the show is that it presents a picture of ufathers that's a drop of water in the ocean of the real story of parenting in America.
Hell, if they wanted reality, the deadbeats would be so inconsequential that Fox wouldn't have time to show them in their hour-long broadcast. The vast majority of the hour would be of men sacrificing, working, worrying, cajoling kids to better themselves, putting themselves in an early grave for the sake of their families.
Fathers have way too much bad PR in this day and age and this exercise in male bashing is inexcusable. More marriages than ever are strained by economic and other societal pressures, and many fathers are lucky to “visit” their own children every other weekend. The last thing we need now is a major television network unfairly damning dad so that it can sell soap.
Fox ought to be ashamed.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Hello all,wanted to let you know that I signed the petition.Even though my youngest son father is a real "deadbet dad"but that does'nt break my heart not getting child support.I let him when our son was 3 months old because he was abusive once and he could of really hurt our son and later I found out he had broke a vertbrate in my back.If my son wanted to see his father i would let him.I have always told him the truth about his father.My real issue is that,2 yrs ago I met the most wonderful,kindest loving man.He is perfect in my eyes.He loves my kids as his own and I do the same.Hear is our issue.Back in 2007 the state took 3,300 out of his checking account for child support and his kids only seen 1,200 of it.Now they say he owes 5,000 and trying to charge him with 6 felonies of non-child support.He is one of the lucky ones cuz he does get to see his boys on a regular bases.He has been sick for several months now and some days he could'nt hardly move.His job is seasonal depending on the weather and he helps his father out at the farm.He worries about he father cuz he is getting up there in age and he does'nt want his dad to over do himself and get hurt.He has gone to court over all this mess and was appointed a public defender but she is not on his side.Glenn and all who read this,we need to see what else we can do about this.He so upset and feels like the state is stealing his kids money.I am a worried Mo. Mom ,who is madly in love with this man and he would do whatever he could to help out anybody.Ideas,suggestion anyone.Thanks.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I'd be all for this IF they did a show on non-custodial parents living in poverty while the custodial parent lives in a giant house with pools and so on. A show that shows the negatives of this system in the same manner. It woudl also have to be changed such that they track down women too and changed the name of the show.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Fox is interested in bashing men because they are the socially approved free target.
Fox is not interested in a show called “Bad Mothers” because they are a socially protected target. A show like that would cost Fox a ton of flesh.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Johnnyp,
Maybe Spike TV would do it!
April 29th, 2008 at 10:01 am
"Reality" TV
I wonder how they're going to make this show really work or if it's going to be fake. Will such an evil father (and his friends and business associates) agree to set up cameras everywhere to get enough material for a decent show? And if he does, doesn't that undermine the notion that he's a hostile participant? "I hate you monsters! Is this mic on?"
April 29th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Real-life story:
Dave, my former room-mate is being taken back to court for a child support review.
Dave is an example of how society and courts deals with men (discard after no longer useful). Dave was a successful corporate executive (my boss). He worked 60 or 70 hours a week at a new job trying to build an organization and secure a comfortable life for his family. While Dave was working, his wife had an easy telecommuting job.
Friends and family frequently commented on how Dave’s wife could be a better spouse and mother.
The corporation Dave worked for imploded and he lost his job. Since he had substantial savings from years of being a high achiever, and a generous severance package, the family had no financial fears.
Shortly after Dave lost his job, his wife filed for divorce. At the process worked its path, it became apparent that his wife had planned for this over a period of years. In short, Dave was taken to the financial cleaners, and got the short end of child custody. He spent tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers, yet had little to show for it.
His now ex-wife, moved the children out of state against his personal and legal protests. She frequently interferes with his visitation… it is not unusual for him to drive 600 miles over a weekend to see his kids. When he arrives at the agreed upon time, his ex-wife tells him to come back tomorrow because she does not feel like letting the kids go right now.
Today, Dave is a broken man. After losing is fast track job and then being stabbed in the back by a cold and calculating wife, he has sunk into a sad state. He has lived in a travel trailer, for free at my house, and many other places like a vagabond. He has depleted his retirement accounts keeping up with child support payments. This has been going on for 5+ years, and I am concerned that Dave will end up as a bum because his spirit has been broken.
Meanwhile, his ex-wife owns two nice houses, a new car and lives very comfortably. She thinks it is time to take Dave back to court to squeeze more money.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:13 am
An Unreasonable Person (and proud of it!)
Michael Claymore says: "Now, no reasonable person objects to child support, as long as it doesnt have the non-custodial parent living in a cardboard box over a grate. "
PK responds: I find it suspicious when someone starts out a claim with an appeal to an unlisted majority "Nobody would disagree" or "Reasonable people would say..." Shouldn't "reasonable people" speak for themselves?
That said, I object to most child-support when a child is taken away from a parent and they are expected to pay for the privilege. So-called "Child" support is usually emotional extortion which is why a "reasonable" person falls for it. I would agree with such support in cases where a parent voluntarily relinquishes their parenting obligations to another person. In that case, such support would automatically be reasonable due to the I-cut-cake-you-choose-which scenario. If the parent doesn't have a right to their own children, they are they being obligated to pay for them? Hmmm? It's like me stealing your stereo and demanding you pay for the batteries.
Forced support is _slavery_ gentlemen. So is socialism really. This is why "reasonable" people continue to love the institution in different forms. Nothing is more fun and gratifying than to spend someone else's money and labor.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:19 am
JohnnyP writes: "Meanwhile, his ex-wife owns two nice houses, a new car and lives very comfortably. She thinks it is time to take Dave back to court to squeeze more money."
PK responds: What a horrific story Johnny! It ttouched me that you're letting this poor man live with your family. If it's any comfort, the falling RE market is probably hitting his ex pretty hard. If she got a new car, that may indicate that she was having problems with the old one. I know a man like this and the moment his wife got her money from the settlement, she spent it like a drunk sailor: Bought a house (at the top of the market) and went on a shopping trip.
Then she discovered that homes require maintenance. She has this robot that used to do it for free (the husband) and now she has to pay top dollar for contractors to fix windows and turn on the furnace.
It's a tragedy that this poor man allowed himself to hit bottom like this. Is retirement exempt from CS? If he lost his job, you know, he should have gotten alimony (she was employed, he wasn't.) He should have waited the situation out and protected himself and then when she hit bottom, swooped in and grabbed the kids.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I signed and sent the email. Here is what I got in my inbox:
The message described as:
Received From: 74.208.11.39
Subject: We Protest Fox's New Reality Show 'Bad Dads'
To: kerri@3ballproductions.com
cannot be delivered due to antispam settings.
The Policies causing this bounce:
MAILRULE #0
April 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Ugh, PolishKnight -- so the kid doesn't get any support from the father if the court doesn't award the father custody, is that right? I mean, it's the kid's fault he was born? He'll just have to manage without any help from the father, just because some dumb judge didn't award dad custody?
I hope Fox doesn't notice your comment on this thread, because someone from Fox certainly will be monitoring this Web site today. If they see it, it will only underscore their preconceived notion that the whole group of us "wackos."
April 29th, 2008 at 10:34 am
I sent the email too, it came back as undeliverable spam.
What is really sad about this "Bad Dad" TV show is, FOX is giving many people what they want to see. Many TV voyuers are going to love this deadbeat circus.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Here's the email I set. Simple enough. When this show does air, we need to let advertisers know that commercials featured on the show will serve as a guide for what products not to buy...
With its planned show, "Bad Dads," Fox goes after a safe target and continues the stereotype of uncaring fathers who have the money to pay child support but would rather spend the money on the Lexus and girlfriends.
The majority of child support arrearages are due to inability to pay. Men cannot get orders adjusted downward after layoffs, etc, and interest, etc is charged. Orders also are made retroactive.
Will the show note fathers who have little money left to live on after child support payments and who rarely get to see their children because of a divorce they did not initiate and did not deserve?
Not to mention the humiliation the children will feel when their dads are shown on this show.
Shame on Fox!
April 29th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Who's in favor of a mass email to FOX informing them we will notify all sponsors of their proposed show of a coordinated boycott if they go through with it?
G_R
April 29th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Tim Murray - you make an excellent point about postings.
Unfortunately, I fear that it will fall on "blind eyes."
Doc
April 29th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I have called and written, and I suggested that, assuming they go through with this concept, (1) Parents rights groups will protest en-masse, and (2) they should counter this show with a show detailing the many problems with the child support collection system, like father who cannot get reductions when their jobs are outsourced to other countries (guaranteed to kill the "but he chose to quit" argument), and the fact that most sheriffs will target low income dads who cannot afford to move, and who cannot afford a quality attorney who will fight for them, but instead get Public defenders who have lost sight of their purpose, I.E. who are they representing, the client who is not paying the bill, or the state who is paying.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Glenn...my email also got returned as "undeliverable". Any idea what's going on here?
April 29th, 2008 at 10:54 am
participation in protests should be accompanied by reaching out to others,
be bold and send a linc to Glenn Sacks website to some friends of you'res.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:01 am
PolishKnight:
Apparently the court calculated Dave's CS based on his potential income. Of course the court sees him as a delinquent man because he is no longer able to work the high-stress jobs that pay $150k+ salaries anymore.
Remember... many courts see men as beasts of burden. If they do not pull the wagon, then it is time to break out the whip.
Over the past several years I think Dave's income has been something like:
$120,000
$150,000
$150,000
$0 (lost job then wife divorced him)
$0
$40,000
$25,000
$80,000
$20,000
The court just says "get a job that pays $150k again, and you will do fine. I have looked into his eyes, and can see he cannot take that kind of stress anymore. He is no more able to get a high-level job than a 60 year old athlete can go back to the Olympics and win another gold metal like he did previously.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Johnnyp Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 11:01 am
PolishKnight:
Apparently the court calculated Dave's CS based on his potential income. Of course the court sees him as a delinquent man because he is no longer able to work the high-stress jobs that pay $150k+ salaries anymore.
____________________________________________________________________________________
April 29th, 2008 at 11:12 am
David M Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Johnnyp Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 11:01 am
PolishKnight:
Apparently the court calculated Dave's CS based on his potential income. Of course the court sees him as a delinquent man because he is no longer able to work the high-stress jobs that pay $150k+ salaries anymore.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry about that my thumb hit the enter button.
The point I want to make is that it is not child support, they should call it supporting a lifestyle.
He paid more than enough to "support" a child. He is guilty of not supporting a lifestyle for them and his ex.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Not trying to double post......this is the email I sent to fox execs......lets put the activism in men's rights folks
Greetings,
It looks like men are being demonized again. Not that this is newsworthy - we in the men's rights movement (MRM) are pretty used to it so we do not expect that it will make any headlines. With any luck, we will be organizing protests and boycotts on media outlets that seem to refuse to identify our issues and causes seriously. Ignoring men's rights in the long run will not be beneficial in the long run and making programs that demonize men we find utterly distaseful.
Media outlets should continue to make themselves irrelevant if not downright unpleasant (and arguably, hateful) by not only continuing to ignore or ridiclue the men's right's movement, bu also by producing more misandric fare for public consumption.
Just as many men were and are suporters of feminism (I support many of the ideals of feminism, but I feel too many have strayed far from their ideals), many women are supporters of masculism, or simply men's rights activism. WHY? Seems women do not like you demonizing their men. Why do I say you? FOX produces many programs that demonize men.
FOX is a major part of the problem since YOU are major producers of misadnric content (we refuse to support misandric content and will be letting advertsiers know of our disapointment with those who attempt to profit from the demonization of people who happen to be male.
It is obvious that some men are bad (but then again, some women are bad, too).
Would FOX create a program called Bad Moms? WOmen's rights groups are too powerful to ignore their movement. They are well organized and well funded. The men's rights movement is neither, but do not count us out just yet.
Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture
http://www.amazon.com/Spreading-Misandry-Teaching-Contempt-Popular/dp/0773530991
Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men
http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
both books by by Paul Nathanson (Author), Katherine Young (Author)
Fox is creating a new show called bad dads.
We all know there are no bad moms, only bad dads.
Feminsm's ideal was supposed to be equality and fairness and yet it has spawned nothing of the sort.
If i watch the show, it will likely only be so I can begin contacting the sponsors (advertisers) of the program and let em know how quickly I will be urging a boycott.
THIS IS NEWS!
Misandry (Contempt for or hatred of men). I BET FOX NEWS has NEVER done a story on misandry.
Men’s rights refers to the freedoms inherently possessed by men and boys of all ages, which may be institutionalized, ignored or suppressed by law, custom, and behavior in a particular society. Supporters of men's rights aim to promote the physical, economic and emotional well-being of all men and boys, viewing this as part of human rights, civil rights, or equal rights. They are particularly concerned with issues involving family life such as family law, child custody, paternity fraud, and domestic violence. There is no single unifying manifesto or organization which can claim to speak for the entire movement and the term is used in various ways.
Related areas of the men's movement include:
Fathers' rights focus on the relationship between fathers and their children and in particular family law.
Masculism provides a counterpart to feminism and argues against legal constructs, reforms, or entitlements which deny men equal rights under the law on the basis of gender; there are conservative "traditionalist", "liberal", and libertarian strands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father%27s_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophobia
April 29th, 2008 at 11:29 am
How about a show called Immoral Moms. It could be about some of America's finest female's who have multiple
children by multiple men. You can show they're chaotic households and all the money they extort from joe tax payer.
See the children going to counseling, see all the resources they use due to their dysfunctional lives. I know as I work in a medicaid office.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Well Tim, some of us ARE wackos that think Child Support should not exist unless the father agrees to it as replacement for his time with the child. For that matter, child support should not be levied for a child you as a man do not want. It's the same thing women enjoy, so go ahead and get all moral if you like....I just want equal reproductive rights.
In the case of marriage, time to bring back "fault" divorce.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Hey, the kid doesn't get any support from the mother if she chooses to give the kid up for adoption or legally abandons the child. Why are men held to a higher standard? Why do men not have equal rights?
In the cases of wanted children, e.g. after divorce, then what is child support? It's a crock of crap that I have to pay "my share" of supporting the child financially when I am WILLING AND ABLE to do so via actually having that time with my kids. I didn't choose to become a every-other-weekend father, so there's no reason in hell that I should be forced to pay for that "privilege." And let's not even get started on the absolute bull that is "imputed income" used to rape the livelihood of men.
So should men or women pay child support? No generally. Only if the decision to give the child primarily to the other parent was a voluntary choice. If I don't have a right to equal custody, then I don't have a responsibility to equal support.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hey, Factory, I didn't "get all moral" -- I understand about equal reproductive rights, and I personally want Roe v. Wade overturned (and, yeah, THAT is a moral issue) -- but it would go a long way to creating equal reproductive rights, that's for damn sure. And Demonspawn, I'm for shared parenting, which should result in NO financial commitment for either parent. And frankly, if some men don't want that (there are plenty who won't go for it and who will gladly give up primary custody), yeah, they should pay, but -- to me this is THE big issue -- child support obligations are way too high -- probably twice as high as they should be. No man should "support" an ex-wife to not work, to buy luxuries and expensive vacations. Frankly it's THOSE abuses that have engendered more anger at the system than anything.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Tim Murray: ...I'm for shared parenting, which should result in NO financial commitment for either parent.
A rebuttable presumption for shared parenting does NOT require the elimination of parental transfer payments (commonly referred to as child support).
April 29th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Well then Tim, your priorities are different from mine. I want the right to "abort" just like women have. I want to be able to have "relations" without the fear of being forced into parenthood. I'm 38 years old though, so it's pretty obvious why I don't want more kids. You want to repeal Roe v Wade, I want to extend it. Politics makes strange bedfellows eh?
The transfer of money to compensate for lost relationships MUST STOP. Entirely. It's based on an outdated social system that WOMEN THEMSELVES sought to annihilate. They can hardly complain if they get what they want....right? Well, we should get what they get.
When women decide to fight for a return of no abortion, and marriage for life, I'll jump on board and go with the flow. But I'm not holding my breath.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Further to the previous post, I think as MRA's we should simply fight to extend all the protections women and children have to men. How can anyone argue with that?
:)
April 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Just us wackos here...
Tim Murray says: "Ugh, PolishKnight -- so the kid doesn't get any support from the father if the court doesn't award the father custody, is that right? I mean, it's the kid's fault he was born? He'll just have to manage without any help from the father, just because some dumb judge didn't award dad custody?
PK responds: Indeed Tim! It's the "dumb" judge's fault, not the father, that the child is with someone who isn't financially capable of supporting them. Garbage in, garbage out! A system that rewards financial irresponsibility in one parent while punishing it in another is doomed from the start. Don't blame the messenger!
Tim Murray continues: I hope Fox doesn't notice your comment on this thread, because someone from Fox certainly will be monitoring this Web site today. If they see it, it will only underscore their preconceived notion that the whole group of us "wackos.""
PK responds: Such name-calling only indicates closed mindedness and timidity on your part. I'd rather be a wacko, for real, anyday.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Extremism
Tim Murray says: "I personally want Roe v. Wade overturned "
PK: Which makes you a wacko, in the eyes of mainstream feminism, like the rest of us for wanting to "push women back into the back alley abortion butchers" and "force" women to have babies against their will. Welcome to the club!
April 29th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
The FIRST thing we should push for in the CS system is to get rid of all the madatory "pay the state" crap. It is a money scheme and should be exposed as such. It gives the agencies motivation to portray fathers as deadbeats to keep the money flowing. Not paying something (other than a fine imposed in criminal court) should never be a crime.
Most men I know would happily pay a reasonable amount so long as they are not cut out of thier child's lives. Heck, I payed less than I volunteered to pay for a few years because she insisted on suing for more support and it got lowered. It was really just a few % sway, but it was amusing. Of course, the fact that my daughter is so afraid of upsetting her mother she won't see me or take my calls is upsetting. Thank goodness for internet chat.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
David M says: "Apparently the court calculated Dave's CS based on his potential income. Of course the court sees him as a delinquent man because he is no longer able to work the high-stress jobs that pay $150k+ salaries anymore."
PK responds: This ties into a recent discussion we had about Darren Mack and how reasonable the judge appeared to be in the final 10 minutes of the proceedings. I don't trust, without seeing actual documentation, that Darren Mack really had 9 million bucks lying around and $40K a month in income.
I don't just blame the judge, but also his attorneys who apparently took thousands and didn't do squat. I'm not a lawyer, but I know that he should have gone to a DOCTOR and gotten immediately declared emotionally disabled and then gone for alimony. I've seen better attorneys do just that. He sounds like a reasonable person and that was why the courts, from the judge, to the attorneys, and even to society picked at him like vultures. It shoots to hell the notion that if we're just reasonable and "moderate" that, maybe, someday the system will get reasonable. This is what MODERATION has produced!
April 29th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Yeah, me and Pope Benedict, a couple of wackos. Proudly.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Demonspawn says: "Hey, the kid doesn't get any support from the mother if she chooses to give the kid up for adoption or legally abandons the child. Why are men held to a higher standard? Why do men not have equal rights?"
PK: I had a lot of fun with Jeana when she declared that men were able to abandon their children and get away with it. We pointed out that only WOMEN, as default primary "caregivers", are able to legally abandon infants without consequence. Then she weaseled on both counts and said that there are women who tolerate men abandoning their children (which is the same thing as proclaiming it to be a right applied to all men) and then argued that only a few women had physically abandoned infants. It was such a delightful mess of double standards and blatant falsehoods.
And these are the people that Tim hopes will respond to "moderation". Don't get them pissed off, they might get mad!
April 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
"We can do a show that tells stories of men/boys who were falselly accussed of rape, and were in effect "lynched" by the people that these vile twisted girls/women told. Call it "The twisted sister's and their violence by proxy chroncles"
A show on false accusations would certainly be appropriate and timely in today's misandrist world, and there is a long historical record in America of the female false accusation modus operandi.
Here is one documentation of that record. The DVD is entitled, Scottsboro An American Tragedy.
Here is a quote from the documentary:
"The protection of white womanhood, it might be the pivot around all Southern culture. The 5,000 people who are lynched from 1880 to 1940, most of those are cases of black men accused of raping, or sexually assaulting white women." - Robin Kelly, Historian, African-American man
From the back cover of the DVD box:
"In 1931, two white women stepped from a boxcar in Paint Rock, Alabama to make a shocking accusation: they had been raped by nine black teenagers on the train."
and
"- a poor white woman whose lie lends her respectability..."
PBS Home Video
American Experience, a production of WGBH Boston
Academy Award Nominee for Best Documentary
Scottsboro An American Tragedy
The case that sparked the civil rights movement
2001 WGBH Educational Foundation
2005 Artwork PBS
April 29th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
PK:
Hear Hear! You'd figure it has happened enough times and to enough people that we would realize that unless we FORCE change through demands and confrontation, nothing will get done. Those who protested the Vietnam War seem to have forgotten all those protest marches and sit-ins. Unless they feel that had no effect.
Please.
This "war" will not be won using Neville Chamberlain's tactics, any more than that one could have been. Being "accommodating" and "reasonable" and "understanding" got us where we are today. These issues do not DESERVE any more "accommodation".
April 29th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Tim:
Your religious beliefs should not affect my life. Not one bit. Like mine should not affect yours. Yes, this is a Judeo-Christian society....notice I didn't say Catholic, or Jewish. Abortion may be against the doctrines of your Church, but since I don't belong to the Catholic Church, why should I be bound by it's rules?
April 29th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Or should I convert to Islam and demand that you take on a harem and make them all wear Burkas?
April 29th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I think Glenn Sacks and Ned Holstein have done a great job of launching this campaign. They are pointing out the fundamental flaws in the stereotype presented --- unquestioningly --- by a show like "Bad Dads." It is amusing to note that even Fox has reported that more mothers fail to pay than fathers. I hope people are listening!
April 29th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
And PK -- no, it isn't right to call you a "wacko," so I apologize that it came out directed at you. You are articulate and maybe it would be a good idea on a high profile thread like this to explain somewhat the basis for your belief as to why the system needs to be completely overhauled. Some of us speak in a shorthand that most eveyone here understands, but outsiders won't. Just saying that a father shouldn't have to pay child support if he doesn't get custody -- that strikes me as hurtful to the child. I KNOW that is not your intention -- but sometimes the nuance is lost in short comments.
By the way, I'm OK being called a wacko because I buy into Catholicism.
Factory -- we are one justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade. Sorry about that. Looks like you'll be voting Democrat, with the radical feminists to keep that from happening.
Michael H: "A rebuttable presumption for shared parenting does NOT require the elimination of parental transfer payments (commonly referred to as child support)." Yes, with some women earning more than men -- and young women in big cities are outearning their male counterparts already -- the support check could be flowing the other way. Regardless, shared parenting should go a long way to eliminating burdensom support obligations. If it doesn't, it's a sham.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
This is just another example of how the media fuels the dad is bad, mother is good propaganda machine. A show like this feeds a very mean stereotype of fathers. What if we were to create a show that accosted mothers receiving child support, but then using the money to buy things like cars, booze, gifts for their boyfriends, etc. while the non-custodial father is working at a fast-food place barely making a living? We could call the show 'Cash Cow'. Yea, let’s see how long that show would be on the air. Feminists would be up in arms about that one. I will tell you one thing; my letter is going to go out today about this father-bashing show.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
menscollegeactivist.org - ”Percentage wise, isn't it true that men pay their child support, more than women pay their child support.”
I had really thought that Glenn would pick up on this one. I posted links to just such an article - at Foxnews.com and through Amy Alkon in an earlier thread.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Oops!
I forgat the link in my last post:
"Deadbeat Dads" Who Are Actually Moms
April 29th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
If there's *that* much disparity in dad's lifestyle and mom's, the kids should be with the more affluent parent, and the less affluent parent can therefore have the time and reduced workload to get off their butts and get self sufficient to the point where they can care for their child.
This way, women will have the freedom from responsibility to go to college, take a half load of women's studies, pursue their career at the legal aid clinic, and when they decide they're ready to be responsible and can focus on being a parent again, they can ask dad if the teens are ready to come live with her.
We should stop rewarding screwups. It's tough love. Just like we should stop enabling alcoholics and drug addicts to continue to be non-productive drags on our society. (How come no-one asks indigents to "pay their fair share" for all of the costs they bring?)
BE equal. It's not a passive verb.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Polish Bull
Tim Murray writes: "And PK -- no, it isn't right to call you a "wacko," so I apologize that it came out directed at you.
PK: Apology accepted. I disagree with a lot of the people here from time to time and have even offended some people too. I hate to say it like this, but we shouldn't cry like girls when we step on each other's toes. You're not scaring me off and neither should you allow me to suppress you if you believe that you have a valid point. If someone isn't willing to put up with even a little verbal sparring, then it's questionable as to whether it will survive in the real world. Nonetheless, there's no reason we can't be respectful of each other.
And that's what I love about being a "Masculist". I'm like a bull in a china shop where so many people have bought into these indoctrinated beliefs without thinking them through that it's easy to step on them. Being reasonable (by their definition) is playing da game. Here's a story:
I went to a party with friends in New Jersey who are red staters through and through. They enjoy the religious values of leftism which means sexual libertinism, white guilt, and modern marxism. People believe stuff because it feels good. Do you believe you're going to hell?
So when their faith is challenged in conventional ways, it's like basically arguing with a nun over transubstantiation. Good luck! She can recite the counter arguments in her sleep while hitting you on the wrist blindfolded. But say something shocking, and sincere, and it rocks their universe.
So as they were giving me this "If you don't like sexism and racism, then you want Affirmative Action to institutionalize it so it will end" lecture, I said that I don't agree that women deserve equality and went into the reasons why. The guy's eyes bugged out of his head, his face turned red, and he ran off. The other red stater party members laughed. They love me around because they know I'm interesting. Think about it: being "extreme" or "real" IS interesting. Nothing gets solved or addressed by trying the same old same old!
Anyways, that's just how I am. Other people's mileage may vary and certainly Glenn has been very successfull with his style. But like you said, we're on the same side and I think even if I'm extreme, I'm not "bad".
Tim writes: You are articulate and maybe it would be a good idea on a high profile thread like this to explain somewhat the basis for your belief as to why the system needs to be completely overhauled. Some of us speak in a shorthand that most eveyone here understands, but outsiders won't. Just saying that a father shouldn't have to pay child support if he doesn't get custody -- that strikes me as hurtful to the child. I KNOW that is not your intention -- but sometimes the nuance is lost in short comments. "
PK responds: On the contrary, I said and I"ll clarify again that putting a child with a parent unable to financially provide for it while punishing the financial breadwinner is a recipe for hurting children. It's like telling doctors who are great at curing childhood diseases that they'll have to work for free (because then they can help more children, see?) while doctors who perform botox should get $2000 an hour.
In theory, like marxism, it seems like we're helping children right? But slavery and punishing providers (namely, men) is a recipe for cultural suicide.
Morpheus: [to Neo who is choosing the red pill] Remember... all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Any Old Timers here?
Factory says: "Those who protested the Vietnam War seem to have forgotten all those protest marches and sit-ins. Unless they feel that had no effect."
PK responds: I have talked with many vets about this as well as read right wing interpretations, but this is what I heard: The protestors of the Vietnam war had a legitimate gripe: The draft. Ironically, even as this was going on feminists and leftists were claiming that middle class white women were oppressed. Anyways, that gripe on the part of young men of the time was exploited by marxists and drug crazed hippies who ran around bashing America, cheering on the enemy, and undermining both morale and the war effort.
The leftist media was already in place by that time and didn't want to see communism opposed. So when moderate Nixon won the election in 1968, it was a friggin' godsend! (Hmmm, sounds like McCain, doesn't it?) A war dragging on that could be pinned on a Republican, rather than LBJ or the now deified JFK, was ideal.
It's my understanding that the military was hamstrung by rules such as where they could bomb or the bombing routes they had to follow (which was great for the Vietcong after McCain supposedly gave them those routes to get medical aid.) Ammunition was rationed. I'm not sure if those claims are true so I would love an old timer's perspective.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
PK, I have two rules for the practice of law: (1) if opposing counsellikes me, I know I'm not doing my job. (2) If my own client likes me as we're meandering through the lawsuit, I probably am not doing my job. I agree, debate is healthy so long as it doesn't become so divisive that we lose sight of the common goals. I may disagree with some of your views, but it doesn't matter. We're on the same team.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Just have to state for the record one more time that I'm Canadian, and therefore could give a rat's pitootie what the political beliefs of your Supreme Court Justices are. I never have, and likely never will. On the Abortion Debate (tm) we here in Canada made it legal through an act of legislation, not the legal system, and therefore its removal from the cultural lexicon would require a POLITICAL win....not likely to happen I'm afraid. If abortion became illegal in the States, it would simply confirm our cultural stereotype that Americans are all a bunch of uneducated, religious, right-wing, gun toting war mongers.
That said, regardless of the outcome, I'd be OK, as long as the rules were the same for all. I was fully prepared for a lifetime of monogamy (I was married you know), but since the "rules" didn't require that of my ex, she never made that same commitment. If they had, and she had, I wouldn't be here.
Get my meaning?
Now, as to the level of "extremism" allowed here or in public display, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say "nay" to your viewpoint. I know I make a lot of people here choked. I don't care. In fact, I enjoy it. Because it means I'm challenging them, or their beliefs. Which means they are either going to react instinctively and prove themselves to be dolts, or they examine their own argument - even if only for the purposes of shaping it effectively. Either outcome has value.
I suspect PK and I would be killer fun at parties together.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
PK, I believe feminism hijacked the sympathy for men in draft protests, substituted "war is hell" message, and began their campaign to dehumanize men on the return of the vets.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
If you want to fix the child support system, all you need to do is make child custody decision with a coin toss. Then the mighty power of Feminism and Chivalry would work to make the system as fair as possible.
The reality of child custody is... in the vast majority of cases, both parents are qualified to raise a child. In the vast majority of cases, there is only a slim margin between one parent being better than the other.
Unless the court can determine that a father is clearly a worse parent (or mother is a worse parent) then the decision should be a coin toss. (but then again, that assumes our system cares about fair outcomes and secondary impacts of policy).
The coin toss being used in most divorces would simultaneously fix the problem with skyrocketing divorce rates and the serious problems with custody and support.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Factory writes: "I suspect PK and I would be killer fun at parties together."
PK: And let you steal my thunder? There's only room for one barking seal! Give me fish! Honk honk honk!
Another story: A friend of mine, an actual commie (80 years old) invited me along to her relative's house in seaside Malibu. I was polite but the topic turned to politics and, get this, they argued that women's rights were worse under the new government in Iraq because of the secular nature of Saddam's regime. Now, granted, they have a point but still... this was some low hanging fruit and seal is hungry!
So I told the joke about God calling the Washington Post about the world ending and them writing up the headline: "World to end tomorrow! Women and minorities disproportionately affected!" and it was clear they never heard it before. You could hear a pin drop! (And no, I wasn't invited back.)
April 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
"Bad Dads" clearly exemplifies the fact that, as far as the media goes, and the family kangaroo kourt system, the emotional and financial support for children is NEVER the bottom line, "Bad Dads" is just another excuse by FOX to bash fathers in particular and men in general.
Most of the domestic violence perpetrated on children is perpetrated by women, most child murderers are women, many states have "Safe Haven" laws which allow women to dump their newborn off at a fire/police station or a hospital and walk away with no questions asked, what man would be allowed to do that? And yes it is a fact that a higher percentage of non-custodial mothers don't pay child support as compared to men, that's women are ordered to pay support at all, women are less likely to be ordered to pay child support by the kangaroo kourt system than men, children the bottomline, huh?
These are just a few of America's dirty little secrets that don't hear about from FOX and others.
Semper Fi
April 29th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
It is interesting that our society has turned men's fundamental desire to love and provide for women and children into a very profitable legal racketeering industry.... via "no-fault" divorce.
Funny kind of gender oppression. Seems like a one-way street.
A "free" market to harvest fathers!
Every broken up family has to buy everything over again --- think about it. Housing, appliances, automobiles, etc.
Divorce is probably the only thing keeping the US economy marginally intact.
Now what is going to happen when men refuse to marry?
It will be like the dot.com bust only worse.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
"That said, I object to most child-support when a child is taken away from a parent and they are expected to pay for the privilege. So-called "Child" support is usually emotional extortion which is why a "reasonable" person falls for it."
Of all the moronic crap PK spews on this site this is the most offensive.I generallly avoid pointing out how irrational and absurd your views are as i'm not here to fight the anti-feminists but as youve been foolish enough to call me out i shall "bring it". I re-iterate, no reasonable person would object to child support. Be you male or female,if you make it you have the responsibility to care for it, even if the person you make it with turns out to be a piece of crap. The child should not be punished for the sins of the parent. The child is already suffering from not having the emotional support of the non-custodial parent, must we worsen the situation by denying it finacial support as well?
"I would agree with such support in cases where a parent voluntarily relinquishes their parenting obligations to another person. In that case, such support would automatically be reasonable due to the I-cut-cake-you-choose-which scenario."What the hell does that mean? If a person has "relinquished their parenting obligations to another person" how does child support follow, automatically or otherwise? Is child support not part of the responsibilities they have relinquished? Of course it is.Try to be more rational." If the parent doesn't have a right to their own children, they are they being obligated to pay for them? Hmmm? "
Your obligation to a life you created is not contingent on your having a right to it.If you think a person doesnt have a duty to look after someone theyve created then you are not only unreasonable but callous, irresponsible, and the kind of low-life male that the feminists love to point at on Glenn's site. Thank you for confirming their worst fears, my Neanderthal friend. Lets face it PK, we need you like the feminists need Andrea Dworkin. I cringe at the idea of people reading this blog and going away thinking we are all as irresponsible and mean spirited as yourself. The real feminists will see us however they want, but the undecided are far more likely to go to the other side when examples such as you are pointed out.
"Forced support is _slavery_ gentlemen."
Another of PKs many mindless exagerations. Even though the two states have some small similarities, there is more to slavery than taking some of one's money. Like, you know, being kept chained up, and the ocasional whipping.
The logical fallacies continue...
"...So is socialism really. This is why "reasonable" people continue to love the institution in different forms."
Even if your first two contentions were correct they would not support this final conclusion. How do the ideas that "forced support" and "socialism" are slavery lead to reasonable people "loving the institution"?
If you're going to successfully lie to us, you'll have to be much better than the above examples sugest.
As for the issue of being moderate, neither moderation nor extremism are bad in themselves. All ideas, moderate, traditional, or radical should be considered on their merits. The problem with most of your views is not that they are extremist but that they are not sound, they are full of logical fallacies, and have no real evidence to back them up. They are, as i have stated before... "Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing"
I thank you for the exercise, and look forward to debunking your future attempts at sophistry- not all of them of course, as unlike some people i dont live on the internet. I shall concentrate on only your most egregious mistakes.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
"Of all the moronic crap PK spews on this site this is the most offensive."
*sigh* That's high praise! I know when I've really touched someone that they feel a need to say something like that. *sniff* Thank you!
April 29th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
David Says:
April 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Good post David.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Youre welcome, PK, but i cant help noticing you didnt have the courage to address my actual arguments. You didnt for example explain how the two propositions about socialism and "forced support" lead to your supposed conclusion. Ive said before we need some honest and rational feminists in this place, i guess i should add likewise for the "masculists."
And you're right- you would be good fun at a party, albeit mostly for the bouncer.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
It is scary that we live in such current times that a show such as this would be socially acceptable. Very spooky indeed.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Lounge...check
Glenfiddich...check
Munchies...check
Gentlemen...start your engines.
Ah, Big Brother for the Mensa qualified.
All part of the same continuum. One group is left unprotected by political correctness and are thus the only legitimate target for abuse at any level. Easily accomplished in a culture naturally predisposed to holding less compassion for the gender viewed as more disposable as individual units.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Married With Children...The Simpsons...Family Guy....now this Bovine Stuff...I knew there was a reason I avoid FOX
April 30th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Put away the munchies gwallan. A flame war this isn't going to be - life's too short to act like a kid on a playground. I am however going to make a habit of debunking PK when his microcephallic side pops up, just in case some of the thousands who read this blog are naive enough to fall for his sophistry. And God forbid that people walk away from here thinking that because no-one tackles him on his unsupported assertions we are tacitly agreeing with him.
By the way, congratulations on Mensa, i didn't make it, and if PKs writing is anything to go by neither did he.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Michael Claymore says: "I am however going to make a habit of debunking PK when his microcephallic side pops up, just in case some of the thousands who read this blog are naive enough to fall for his sophistry."
PK responds: I welcome the dialogue Michael! I'm sure the naive people will be thankful for your patronage and sparing them from the horrors of judging what I write for themselves. Nothing shows my lack of writing ability more than people listening to every word I say in an effort to dubunk my unsupported claims...
I've tried to post a longer response but apparently the site's problems are kicking in. I'll try again.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Michael Claymore wrote: Youre welcome, PK, but i cant help noticing you didnt have the courage to address my actual arguments."
PK responds: My wife stole the computer and then when I got it back and posted, it didn't show up. I tried three times. Now I'm trying again. It's funny to hear you rush to accuse me of cowardice when you resort to name-calling and personal hyperbole. Anyways, here you go:
Your argument is a moral pontification as follows: "Be you male or female,if you make it you have the responsibility to care for it, even if the person you make it with turns out to be a piece of crap."
Others have already knocked over that high horse several times. Women "unmake it" via abortion, or legal adoption, or even outright legal abandonment. 'nuff said. The rest, they say, is all gravy. Yum!
Regarding the lack of emotional support from the non-custodial parent. This is like kicking your dog out of the home and getting angry at it for not fetching your newspaper or bringing home rabbits. If the children's interests really are important to you then focus on them rather than allowing them to be exploited for emotional blackmail.
For the record, I don't have any bastard children precisely because I distrusted modern women and regarded feminism as a simple goodie grab. Later on in life, women really dug the fact that I didn't have any burdens they'd have to marry into. Win win!
MC asks: "How do the ideas that "forced support" and "socialism" are slavery lead to reasonable people "loving the institution"?"
PK responds: I had already said: "Nothing is more fun and gratifying than to spend someone else's money and labor." which answers that question nicely. I shall not elaborate on the obvious. If you can't get it, that's your problem. Moving on:
You make a personal ad-hominem arguement that's laughably contradictory and delightfully smug when you write: "The problem with most of your views is not that they are extremist but that they are not sound, they are full of logical fallacies, and have no real evidence to back them up."
And you prove this claim by writing:
"They are, as i have stated before... "Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing""
Your in total knee jerk mode and don't even realize how you contradict yourself and are a perfect example of what you accuse me of. I killed your sacred cow and now you're mad at me and I think that's wonderful. You dream of seeing me bounced out and threaten to follow me around and discredit me. That's cognitive dissodence yanking your chain, not me.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
You guys might be familiar with this video from a woman named Carol Rhodes, but I wasn't. She supposedly is an insider and has some pretty stinging things to say about how child support is enforced. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOC58c-Ibdk
April 30th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Michael taking on PolishKnight...this ought to be entertaining. And no, I don't expect a flame war. It's just fun to watch a smug, self-satisfied pontificator get slaughtered in debate.
Three guesses who my money's on. :)
April 30th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Factory says "Michael taking on PolishKnight...this ought to be entertaining. And no, I don't expect a flame war. It's just fun to watch a smug, self-satisfied pontificator get slaughtered in debate.
Three guesses who my money's on. :)"
Factory, please dont refer to PK as smug and self satisifed, it may damage your obvioulsy close relationship.
PS
Where can i collect on that bet?
April 30th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Pk is right about one thing- the site's acting up again.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Oh, PK, surely even you can do better than this...
"It's funny to hear you rush to accuse me of cowardice when you resort to name-calling and personal hyperbole."
The "name calling" is, i think most readers realize, meant as an element of humor and entertainment,
much like your mentions of "gravy, yum". Furthermore, how do my "name calling and personal hyperbole" contradict the idea that you are being intellectually cowardly? As is your wont you are coming to a conclusion that is not supported by the premises you offer. This is equivalent to saying, apples are red, grass is green, therefore my car gets 30 miles per gallon.
Please try to be more rational.
"Your argument is a moral pontification as follows: "Be you male or female, if you make it you have the responsibility to care for it, even if the person you make it with turns out to be a piece of crap."
Others have already knocked over that high horse several times. Women "unmake it" via abortion, or legal adoption, or even outright legal abandonment. 'nuff said. The rest, they say, is all gravy. Yum"
Im not interested in "others". Refusing to disprove my premise by claiming that some unspecified person has already done so is the height of intellectual cowardice. Also, even though women “unmaking it” by abortion etc is true, this is irrelevant to my argument as i clearly state "male or female". Women being legally allowed to carry out these actions has no bearing on the irresponsibilty or otherwise of such actions- the law makes actions legal, it does not make them moral or responsible. Keep in mind that the law used to say it was acceptable to own another human being, so one mustnt make the mistake of equating law with morality.
Again you have failed to establish why one doesnt have the responsibilty to care for what one creates.
"MC asks: "How do the ideas that "forced support" and "socialism" are slavery lead to reasonable people "loving the institution"?"
PK responds: I had already said: "Nothing is more fun and gratifying than to spend someone else's money and labor." which answers that question nicely. I shall not elaborate on the obvious. If you can't get it, that's your problem. Moving on:"
What you actually said was this...
"Forced support is _slavery_ gentlemen. So is socialism really. This is why "reasonable" people continue to love the institution in different forms. Nothing is more fun and gratifying than to spend someone else's money and labor."
None of this supports the idea that "forced support" and socialism are slavery, and none of it supports the idea that people "love the institution" because it is "slavery" or because they get to spend someone elses money. Yet again you are supporting your conclusions with irrelevant premises.
"You make a personal ad-hominem arguement that's laughably contradictory and delightfully smug when you write: "The problem with most of your views is not that they are extremist but that they are not sound, they are full of logical fallacies, and have no real evidence to back them up."
How does that qualify as ad-hominem? The statement attacks "your views" not "you". To commit the fallacy of Ad hominem is to attack the man rather than his arguments, the above statement clearly focuses on your views, not on you. Incidentally, "personal ad-hominem" is a redundancy- ad hominem is by definition personal.
Also, how is my statement contradictory? You really must try to express yourself more clearly.
"And you prove this claim by writing:
"They are, as i have stated before... "Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing""
Your in total knee jerk mode and don't even realize how you contradict yourself and are a perfect example of what you accuse me of. I killed your sacred cow and now you're mad at me and I think that's wonderful. You dream of seeing me bounced out and threaten to follow me around and discredit me. That's cognitive dissodence yanking your chain, not me."
I take it from this rather confused passage that you are implying my MacBeth quote applies to my own statements. For once, you are partly right . My statements are indeed "Full of sound and fury"- it's that entertainment value again- but only a fool would describe my words as "signifying nothing." Loud, yes, bombastic, yes, but meaningless i think not. Also, claiming victory does not make you the victor- you claim to have killed my "sacred cow" yet you still have not given any evidence that one does not have responsibilty to care for a life one has created. My cow, my friend, is still alive and kicking, and yes, mooing loudly.
And no PK, i dont dream of seeing you bounced out, you provide me with far too much practice in the art of spotting logical fallacies. For that, and for nothing else, I thank you sir.
"Nothing shows my lack of writing ability more than people listening to every word I say in an effort to dubunk my unsupported claims"
Written matter is read, not listened to, and it is not the implied quality of your writing that makes me analyze it - it is the patent lack of quality in your thinking.
If you're going to take on the big dog you will need some much bigger dentures.
PS
My sympathies on having married someone who periodically steals your computer.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
MichaelClaymore: Why are you even bothering? Ultimately, it all really has noting constructive to do with the thread. Well, that is, aside from the fact that people can read some of the comments that you may be rightly complaining about and judge all people in the MRM by those comments.
No doubt those comments stand out much brighter than any rational comments might.
Doc
April 30th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Doc, whats more constructive in intellectual debate than keeping it honest and rational? Nothing.
I have been reluctant to take on the irrational statements put forward by some of these guys because we are largely on the same side, but when one of them sees fit to attack my views im going to respond. Keep in mind, MichaelClaymore is my real name, no anonymity here. The words i write are forever attached to my name, and so i dont wish to have them misrepresented. And my anonymous friend PK is right about one thing, we should welcome dialogue as without argument we would be no better than a bunch of feminists sitting at a keyboard writing "Right On!" and "Oh, wow, she is like, so rad."
April 30th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
"No doubt those comments stand out much brighter than any rational comments might.'
Unfortunately, you are right about that, which is why i try to keep my posts caustic. Who the hell wants to read a dry analysis? Alas, no-one, not even me.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:44 am
Wow, that is corruption...
chris wrote:
Chris D Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
You guys might be familiar with this video from a woman named Carol Rhodes, but I wasn't. She supposedly is an insider and has some pretty stinging things to say about how child support is enforced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOC58c-Ibdk
May 1st, 2008 at 2:35 am
Because women aren't held responsible.
Simple... fact.... How much more basic can we get?
Responsibility only exists when someone/something holds you responsible, or one chooses to be responsible. Since women are not choosing to be responsible, and nobody and nothing are holding them responsible, then women don't have the responsibility to care for what they create.
Consider it established.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:43 am
Demonspawn (and actually your name is quite appropriate in a perverse way...) your generalizations seem to be quite far from what reality actually is.
You have established absolutely nothing by bashing the minority of women who are not responsible.
Doc
May 1st, 2008 at 7:54 am
Doc said, "Demonspawn (and actually your name is quite appropriate in a perverse way...) "
Doc, if Glenn would let me, I would write down what I really think of you. You sound so arrogant as to make you unintentionally funny. For anybody old enough to remember, Doc is the "Charles Emerson Winchester" of this thread (think M.A.S.H).
And, I still think you are a woman pretending to be a man on here Doc. Why don't you "be a man" and admit it?
May 1st, 2008 at 8:50 am
Demonspawn ...
You quote me...
"Again you have failed to establish why one doesnt have the responsibilty to care for what one creates."
And then you answer...
"Because women aren't held responsible.
Simple... fact.... How much more basic can we get?"
This would have been a very good response, my horned friend, if my contention had been about being held responsible for what one creates, but it was about beingresponsible for what one creates
As it is, your statement about women not being held responsible is, alas for society, true,but it does not support the contention that one is not responsible, only the contention that women arent being held responsible.
"Responsibility only exists when someone/something holds you responsible, or one chooses to be responsible. Since women are not choosing to be responsible, and nobody and nothing are holding them responsible, then women don't have the responsibility to care for what they create."
This is fallacious as it's validity rests on your contention that there are only two circumstances in which responsibility exists ie when you are held responsible or when you choose to be responsible. At what point did we all come together to agree on such a narrow definition of responsibilty? I must have missed that memo.
You should try this definition of responsibilty at a feminist website, im sure they'd love to be told that since a woman who destroys a fetus through abortion isnt being held responsible by "nobody or nothing", all she has to do is "choose " to not be responsible, and abracadabra, she isnt responsible! Im sure you'd get a lot of "You go girl"s as you seem to have the same definition of responsibility that they do- a child's definition which says that unless mommy/daddy gets pissed off that you havent fed your kitten, or unless you choose to feed the kitten, then you have no responsibilty to feed your kitten!
The adult definition of responsibilty is much more demanding and includes the idea of doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because one chooses to do it or because one fears punishment or disaproval.
Lets say im on a ship and it sinks, and the only two survivors, washed up on a deserted island, are myself and a two year old boy whom ive never seen before. Now, he's not my kid, and it would be easier for me to survive if i did not invest some of my resources in helping the child to survive so im sure as hell not going to make a conscious, rational choice to take responsibility for the kid, but take responsibilty i will, not because i choose it but because that is what my internalized adult definition of responsibility compels me to do. Alas, the complexities of adulthood.
I cant say what you would do in such a situation, demon, perhaps you would simply see the child as an emergency source of protein!
"Consider it established."
No, consider it clever and specious but not established. Good try though.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:53 am
Michael Claymore writes: "Im not interested in "others".
And yet you started this discussion with: "Now, no reasonable person objects to child support", and wrote "just in case some of the thousands who read this blog are naive enough to fall for his sophistry. And God forbid that people walk away from here thinking that because no-one tackles him on his unsupported assertions we are tacitly agreeing with him." and "I cringe at the idea of people reading this blog and going away thinking we are all as irresponsible and mean spirited as yourself. "
and finally, the coup de grace: The "name calling" is, i think most readers realize, meant as an element of humor and entertainment."
It doesn't help your crusade as the protector of the naive reader to then rely upon them to come to your rescue. In addition, I've noticed that when you get stressed you tend to not capitalize your "i"s. How feminine of you!
You then attempt to handwave away women's irresponsibility: "Women being legally allowed to carry out these actions has no bearing on the irresponsibilty or otherwise of such actions" Yet, your entire case was based upon the "reasonable" person (whoever that is.) Therefore, many "reasonable" people in positions of power disagree with you (and many of them are probably well educated Mensa members too.) FYI: It's clear I did make a response to your argument and simply crediting people for making the point earlier is not the same as referring to others in leau of a point of my own. That's your technique and I wouldn't want to steal it.
You claim: "Keep in mind that the law used to say it was acceptable to own another human being, so one mustnt make the mistake of equating law with morality." Er, I was the one who made the comparison between slavery and child-support laws and custody in the first place. You're contradicting yourself at so many levels it's incredible. You claim that morality and the law shouldn't be mistaken and at the same time retreat to the status quo when pressed for an example. Then you even prove my point for me about how people like slavery ("child" support) when it suits them. Keep up the good work!
The rest of your comment is sheer bluster. I could go into all the different, stereotypical ways you bluster but it would bore the reader even more than you already have. And unlike you, I trust them to figure out things for themselves which explains why you're enraged and desperately trying to project it upon me.
"i dont dream of seeing you bounced out,"
Yet You did. Oh, wait, I should write that: "you" did. Keep dreaming!
May 1st, 2008 at 11:05 am
How the world works
Michael Claymore says: "The adult definition of responsibilty is much more demanding and includes the idea of doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because one chooses to do it or because one fears punishment or disaproval" and later "but because that is what my internalized adult definition of responsibility compels me to do"
This explains a lot Michael. Really. You are engraged that the rest of the world, including us, doesn't agree with your self-defined "internalized" "adult" definitions.
Michael, if people disagree with you that doesn't make them unreaonable by definition no matter how many times you stomp your widdle feet. Using a smug, dismissive tone doesn't help either. In addition, you're craving acceptance from feminists that you just conceded support women acting irresponsibly. My oh my, that is NOT a recipe for either social change OR personal happiness!
Maybe you should go to a deserted island. Then you won't have to argue with so many stupid, inconsiderate, immature people...
May 1st, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Testing.Glenn this thing is acting up again
May 1st, 2008 at 10:29 pm
'Im not interested in "others".
I am arguing with you, pk, what Joe Bloggs has to say is irrelevant. Saying that
someone else has already proven your point for you without naming that person
is tantamount to a child seeing someone perform a triple somerssault
then saying "i can do that, but i dont wanna"
"It doesn't help your crusade as the protector of the naive reader to then rely
upon them to come to your rescue."
This is dishonest as what i said was ...
"just in case someof the thousands who read this blog" and this is
consistent with the later statement which was...
"i think most readers realize, meant as an element of humor and entertainment."
It is consistent to say that some of our readers may be
naive enough to swallow your stale spam, while also saying that most of them
can tell my ad hominems are meant to be humourous. You tried to lead everyone to believe
i had used a universal in both statements, didn't you, pk? Tut tut.
Also, how does saying that they can tell the ad hominems are included for
entertainment value cosnstitute asking for their aid? Take my little joke about
demon and the emergency protein source, does anyone except a complete dullard
fail to recognize that for what it is, ie a joke? You are also portraying a desire to help others avoid being taken in by
your lies as a sign of arrogance. Apparently the problem isn't that you lie, the problem is that i catch
you at it and then tell everyone about it!
"I've noticed that when you get stressed you tend to not capitalize your "i"s. How feminine of you!"
Nice attempt at trying to sneak in the idea that im "stressed" when accosted on the street by a yapping chihuahua. Little dogs dont stress me, my intellectually inadequate friend, i merely pick them up by the scruff and
dump them into the nearest trash bin. You also seem to be imlying that i am a woman,
or gay, or maybe just, shock! horror! Feminine! Good God, did you really think something
that basic would have an impact on the likes of myself?
"You then attempt to handwave away women's irresponsibility: "Women being legally allowed to carry out these actions has no bearing on the irresponsibilty or otherwise of such actions"
A clear attempt to misrepresent what i said. How very desperate of you. What i actually said is below..
"Women being legally allowed to carry out these actions has no bearing on the irresponsibilty or otherwise of such actions- the law makes actions legal, it does not make them moral or responsible. Keep in mind that the law used to say it was acceptable to own another human being, so one mustnt make the mistake of equating law with morality."
I think that makes it more than clear that i was not trying to absolve women but rather to indict them, you know this as you yourself try to condemn things by comparing them to slavery.
"Yet, your entire case was based upon the "reasonable" person (whoever that is.)"
Again a lie, the assertion that no reasonable person would object to child support is not the same as asserting that i am right because others agree with me. As usual you cant come up with any genuine arguments so you retreat into yapping furiously then backing away.
You then try to use the entire passage as if it were some bizarre syllogism...
"You then attempt to handwave away women's irresponsibility: "Women being legally allowed to carry out these actions has no bearing on the irresponsibilty or otherwise of such actions" Yet, your entire case was based upon the "reasonable" person (whoever that is.) Therefore, many "reasonable" people in positions of power disagree with you.'
Why is that "therefore" in there, pk? Therefore indicates a conclusion, but this time you dont even bother to include your usual irrelevant premises, you simply substitute two statements and then act as if they are premises! What you said was in effect this...
Premise one-Michael tries to handwave away womens responsibilty
Premise two- yet his entire case is based on the "reasonable person"
Therefore, many reasonable people disagree with you.
Now, PK, even one at your intellectual nadir should be able to see how invalid this conclusion is.
You also try to sneak in a little "appeal to authority" by refering not to common individuals who supposedly disagree with me, but to "people in power" who supposedly disagree with me. tut tut.
"FYI: It's clear I did make a response to your argument ..."
And yet, you neither repeat said response, nor tell me where to find it . This is actually just a variation on your previous tactic of saying "Someone else has already answered that" Please try to be more imaginative in your deceptions.
"You claim: "Keep in mind that the law used to say it was acceptable to own another human being, so one mustnt make the mistake of equating law with morality." Er, I was the one who made the comparison between slavery and child-support laws and custody in the first place."
How does my refering to actual slavery bear on your absurd comparison between "forced support" and slavery? You try to act as if ive somehow supported your premise with mine. Please show how.
"And unlike you, I trust them to figure out things for themselves which explains why you're enraged and desperately trying to project it upon me."
Again, you are treating my some as if it were an all. Some can figure it out, and some cant, and those of us who can have a responsibilty to point out the lies to those who cant. And even if you were correct in this how does that lead to my being enraged?
""i dont dream of seeing you bounced out,"
Yet You did. Oh, wait, I should write that: "you" did. Keep dreaming!"
No. What i said was that at a party you'd be fun for the bouncer, because you're the kind of man who gets thrown out and from what ive seen of bouncers they love littering.
Please believe me, pk, when i say that you are providing me with delightfully stimulating intellectual exercise, and that i woud be very sorry to see you go. Never before, not even from our feminist posters, have i been blessed with a target that commits several fallacies in every post.
You are a row of metal ducks at the fairground, my friend, and i am a gleeful 10 year old with an airgun.
You quote my definition of responsibility and then you say..
"This explains a lot Michael. Really. You are engraged that the rest of the world, including us, doesn't agree with your self-defined "internalized" "adult" definitions."
Again this is not supported by the evidence. How does my definition of responsibilty lead to my being "enraged at the rest of the world"? And yes, pk, mine is the adult definition of responsibilty, if you dont have the same definition then you are as emotionally backward as you are intellectually benighted.
"Michael, if people disagree with you that doesn't make them unreaonable by definition no matter how many times you stomp your widdle feet."
To say that no reasonable person would object to child support is not the same as saying that anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable by definition. By the way, you mis-spelt "little".
"In addition, you're craving acceptance from feminists that you just conceded support women acting irresponsibly."
Gramatically this is even worse than your usual, but buried somewhere in here seems to be the idea that i support women acting irresponsibly, when of course what my actual statements show is the opposite. Also in there is the idea that i crave acceptance from the enemy. Only a newcomer to this board would make that claim about a man who once wrote "Feminists are like kicks in the groin- some hurt you less than others, but none are really desirable." You are making a lame attempt at trying to convince our fellow anti-feminists that because i disagree with the statements of someone lacking in reason, i must be sucking up to the enemy. The veteran posters know where i'm coming from, as, my yapping friend, do you.
Even by your standards pk, these are two very poor efforts, consisting mostly of a fallacy known as "argumentum ad nauseam" which is exactly what it sounds like-you simlply repeat the same disproven assertions till we all want to throw up.
I look forward to continuing to destroy what little intellectual credilbilty you may have established, but dont expect another lengthy response on this topic unless you can come up with some fresh garbage
Your friend,
MichaelClaymore
May 1st, 2008 at 10:32 pm
'Im not interested in "others".
I am arguing with you, pk, what Joe Bloggs has to say is irrelevant. Saying that
someone else has already proven your point for you without naming that person
is tantamount to a child seeing someone perform a triple somerssault
then saying "i can do that, but i dont wanna"
"It doesn't help your crusade as the protector of the naive reader to then rely
upon them to come to your rescue."
This is dishonest as what i said was ...
"just in case some of the thousands who read this blog" and this is
consistent with the later statement which was...
"i think most readers realize, meant as an element of humor and entertainment."
It is consistent to say that some of our readers may be
naive enough to swallow your stale spam, while also saying that most of them
can tell my ad hominems are meant to be humourous. You tried to lead everyone to believe
i had used a universal in both statements, didn't you, pk? Tut tut.
Also, how does saying that they can tell the ad hominems are included for
entertainment value cosnstitute asking for their aid? Take my little joke about
demon and the emergency protein source, does anyone except a complete dullard
fail to recognize that for what it is, ie a joke? You are also portraying a desire to help others avoid being taken in by
your lies as a sign of arrogance. Apparently the problem isn't that you lie, the problem is that i catch
you at it and then tell everyone about it!
"I've noticed that when you get stressed you tend to not capitalize your "i"s. How feminine of you!"
Nice attempt at trying to sneak in the idea that im "stressed" when accosted on the street by a yapping chihuahua. Little dogs dont stress me, my intellectually inadequate friend, i merely pick them up by the scruff and
dump them into the nearest trash bin. You also seem to be imlying that i am a woman,
or gay, or maybe just, shock! horror! Feminine! Good God, did you really think something
that basic would have an impact on the likes of myself?
"You then attempt to handwave away women's irresponsibility: "Women being legally allowed to carry out these actions has no bearing on the irresponsibilty or otherwise of such actions"
A clear attempt to misrepresent what i said. How very desperate of you. What i actually said is below..
"Women being legally allowed to carry out these actions has no bearing on the irresponsibilty or otherwise of such actions- the law makes actions legal, it does not make them moral or responsible. Keep in mind that the law used to say it was acceptable to own another human being, so one mustnt make the mistake of equating law with morality."
I think that makes it more than clear that i was not trying to absolve women but rather to indict them, you know this as you yourself try to condemn things by comparing them to slavery.
"Yet, your entire case was based upon the "reasonable" person (whoever that is.)"
Again a lie, the assertion that no reasonable person would object to child support is not the same as asserting that i am right because others agree with me. As usual you cant come up with any genuine arguments so you retreat into yapping furiously then backing away.
You then try to use the entire passage as if it were some bizarre syllogism...
"You then attempt to handwave away women's irresponsibility: "Women being legally allowed to carry out these actions has no bearing on the irresponsibilty or otherwise of such actions" Yet, your entire case was based upon the "reasonable" person (whoever that is.) Therefore, many "reasonable" people in positions of power disagree with you.'
Why is that "therefore" in there, pk? Therefore indicates a conclusion, but this time you dont even bother to include your usual irrelevant premises, you simply substitute two statements and then act as if they are premises! What you said was in effect this...
Premise one-Michael tries to handwave away womens responsibilty
Premise two- yet his entire case is based on the "reasonable person"
Therefore, many reasonable people disagree with you.
Now, PK, even one at your intellectual nadir should be able to see how invalid this conclusion is.
You also try to sneak in a little "appeal to authority" by refering not to common individuals who supposedly disagree with me, but to "people in power" who supposedly disagree with me. tut tut.
"FYI: It's clear I did make a response to your argument ..."
And yet, you neither repeat said response, nor tell me where to find it . This is actually just a variation on your previous tactic of saying "Someone else has already answered that" Please try to be more imaginative in your deceptions.
"You claim: "Keep in mind that the law used to say it was acceptable to own another human being, so one mustnt make the mistake of equating law with morality." Er, I was the one who made the comparison between slavery and child-support laws and custody in the first place."
How does my refering to actual slavery bear on your absurd comparison between "forced support" and slavery? You try to act as if ive somehow supported your premise with mine. Please show how.
"And unlike you, I trust them to figure out things for themselves which explains why you're enraged and desperately trying to project it upon me."
Again, you are treating my some as if it were an all Some can figure it out, and some cant, and those of us who can have a responsibilty to point out the lies to those who cant. And even if you were correct in this how does that lead to my being enraged?
""i dont dream of seeing you bounced out,"
Yet You did. Oh, wait, I should write that: "you" did. Keep dreaming!"
No. What i said was that at a party you'd be fun for the bouncer, because you're the kind of man who gets thrown out and from what ive seen of bouncers they love littering.
Please believe me, pk, when i say that you are providing me with delightfully stimulating intellectual exercise, and that i woud be very sorry to see you go. Never before, not even from our feminist posters, have i been blessed with a target that commits several fallacies in every post.
You are a row of metal ducks at the fairground, my friend, and i am a gleeful 10 year old with an airgun.
You quote my definition of responsibility and then you say..
"This explains a lot Michael. Really. You are engraged that the rest of the world, including us, doesn't agree with your self-defined "internalized" "adult" definitions."
Again this is not supported by the evidence. How does my definition of responsibilty lead to my being "enraged at the rest of the world"? And yes, pk, mine is the adult definition of responsibilty, if you dont have the same definition then you are as emotionally backward as you are intellectually benighted.
"Michael, if people disagree with you that doesn't make them unreaonable by definition no matter how many times you stomp your widdle feet."
To say that no reasonable person would object to child support is not the same as saying that anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable by definition. By the way, you mis-spelt "little".
"In addition, you're craving acceptance from feminists that you just conceded support women acting irresponsibly."
Gramatically this is even worse than your usual, but buried somewhere in here seems to be the idea that i support women acting irresponsibly, when of course what my actual statements show is the opposite. Also in there is the idea that i crave acceptance from the enemy. Only a newcomer to this board would make that claim about a man who once wrote "Feminists are like kicks in the groin- some hurt you less than others, but none are really desirable." You are making a lame attempt at trying to convince our fellow anti-feminists that because i disagree with the statements of someone lacking in reason, i must be sucking up to the enemy. The veteran posters know where i'm coming from, as, my yapping friend, do you.
Even by your standards pk, these are two very poor efforts, consisting mostly of a fallacy known as "argumentum ad nauseam" which is exactly what it sounds like-you simlply repeat the same disproven assertions till we all want to throw up.
I look forward to continuing to destroy what little intellectual credilbilty you may have established, but dont expect another lengthy response on this topic unless you can come up with some fresh garbage.
Your friend,
MichaelClaymore
May 1st, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Sorry about the weird formatting, the site wouldnt upload my html for some reason.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:13 am
Michael Claymore says: "Gramatically this is even worse than your usual, but buried somewhere in here seems to be the idea that i support women acting irresponsibly"
PK responds: Ah yes, a spelling flame. The lifeblood of Internet discussion. I, or should I say, "i" agree with you that we're at the point where you and I have said whatever we're going to say. You've repeatedly proclaimed victory and trash talked (literally) which is how you prove your claims and I've proven my claims in my way. I trust whom you refer to as the naive reader to decide for themselves who makes more sense.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I said i wanted fresh grabage, pk. This is just your old garbage regurgitated.
Youve proven nothing except that the only weapon in your arsenal is the logical fallacy in its many forms.
This conversation is over.
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
"This conversation is over."
Congratulations! That's the only grammatically and orthographically correct sentence you wrote in that exchange and also the last. A fitting end!
July 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I find the fact that there are so many people who ignore the reality of the situation of the fact that there ARE thousands of single moms living alone, with no responsible father to be found, raising a child or children ALONE financially and emotionally absolutely intolerable. Most of the posts I have seen are completely ignorant of these facts- I am one of those mothers, in a time of rising costs, inflation, etc. completely alone in this situation----- I AM bearing that burden, and I should NOT be the only one responsible (as I was NOT alone in the creation of my child- nor did i "TRICK" my ex-husband into having her) . For anyone to say I alone should be accountable is callow, horribly - i dare to say "sexist" (for lack of a better word- i am not a fem-nazi), and ignorant.
June 14th, 2009 at 2:34 am
My TV has an OFF button! I think TV'S in the US they might also, guys wake up, turn off the TV, cancel your cable connection, the ONLY WAY to get these evil corporate giants is to get them in the $$$$.