So how would you propose changing the law to make this better?
I do not propose to change it (meaning, paternity testing laws). Any replacement would probably be much worse than the current set of laws. The best option is what I stated above - secretly test, and test again, and then only when you're sure you dispute paternity and/or file for divorce (if married).
Well, given that the test says that on the whole women don't in fact tend to do that, why would they need to say anything about it?
TFA didn't say that: it said that, over the last 400 years women didn't do that. TFA didn't give any numbers for the present (say, 20 years or so? Single generation?).
In quite a lot of ways, humans are not built to be monomagous. Many societies expect people to vully monomagous. These things clash and the results are, well, predictable.
Humans generally do serial monogamy. However it is only recently that societies stopped punishing infidelity, so who knows what the current state of cuckoldry looks like. This study certainly didn't release the numbers (if it did, I missed 'em). For the majority of the previous 400 years infidelity on the part of the female was punished.
Well, it was not a blanket assertion - see here
where I hedged my bets with "I might be wrong".
in some cases if a considerable amount of time has passed the interests of the child might take precedence.
That bit is why I said "So, the sane thing to do in France is to contest every birth."
Can you explain why it's unfair?
I never said it was. I said the best (legal) option is to simply contest paternity of every child. The best (non-legal) option would be to simply order the home-test kit, do the test secretly and only contest if the home-test gives you reason to believe that you might not be the father.
However, my personal experience with (maybe) ten or so women who were married to someone else is that I felt *much* safer ejaculating into them than with the single women I've been with.
Question: are these hypotheticals or are you actually bragging about your conquests on slashdot?
Why would I *now* brag about conquests? I've never done so before, regardless of the number of times I get told by people-without-an-argument that I must be a lonely virgin sitting in a basement somewhere. IOW - I've had plenty of opportunities to respond to abrasive comments questioning my sex-life before now and I've not actually done so, with one exception.
FWIW, just look at all the responses to my comments over the past year or so from PopeRatzo - 9 out of 10 are simply insults at my masculinity. Had I be the type to boast about conquests I would have taken advantage of a number of opportunities already afforded to me by the crowd that insists on filling every discussion with insults.
Do you have a reference for that? I couldn't find anything, but then again I don't speak much French so it's hard to search.
It's hard to find a non-french reference, but here's a pretty detailed english explanation of *all* a child's paternal rights (not just the bit you wanted to know) - see link. Note that the link itself has a link to the original french document, but you'll have to use google translate on it.
Wikipedia also says "This is partially due to the official desire to "preserve the peace" within French families, with the French government citing psychologists who state that fatherhood is determined by society, rather than biology. "
The posting was misleading. Paternity testing is not illegal in France, but it's regulated and needs either the consent of both (presumed) parents or a court order (which seems to be the same as where I am, in the UK). If there's a dispute over child support payments then a court order would be the way to go.
I might be wrong, but the info I got was that once someone signs up as the father when the child is born (in or out of wedlock), then that man is on the hook regardless of what any paternity test says.
This sort of supports my belief - "This is partially due to the official desire to "preserve the peace" within French families, with the French government citing psychologists who state that fatherhood is determined by society, rather than biology. "
So, yeah - no point in paternity testing if you're still on the hook for child-support.
Plus you really think people thing about everything they do that deeply?
No, we don't. However, my personal experience with (maybe) ten or so women who were married to someone else is that I felt *much* safer ejaculating into them than with the single women I've been with. I don't need to calculate the odds - it just felt safer than with the single women.
It doesn't take deep thought to think "it won't be my problem".
Yes. But for some reason, there are not 50 men per woman in the world, the actual ratio is quite close to 1:1. So why do you ignore the 49 other women?
The ratio is not 1:1 in war-torn areas, and the GP did say "Africa".
(No axe, just saying that historically, the numbers of men:women were less than 1:1).
That is incorrect. Paternity testing is legal in France.
It's legal but ignored - at birth, whichever man signs the form that says he is the father is on the hook for child support even if paternity testing later reveals he is a cuckold. So, the sane thing to do in France is to contest every birth.
So you have no reservations about an alpha male copulating with a desirable female before you do, and then leaving you with the emotional and financial burden of his conquest (in the form of offspring)?
I'm sure every guy who has ever ejaculated in a woman who wasn't his wife has at least once thought "This could cause complications.....but that's ok, some schmuck will come along and pick up the pieces." You're ok being that hypothetical schmuck?
That would be more accurate if you change the bolded parts to "Someone else's wife".
Because the number you are basing your argument on is clearly not accurate. This is just the number of people who:
1. Consider Trump's positions dangerous
2. Are aware of the proposed boycott
3. Buy from Amazon
4. Are willing to stop buying from Amazon
5. Bothered to sign the petition
Whereas you are assuming this is the number of people who:
1. Consider Trump's positions dangerous
Clearly there is some sort of gap in your thought process, as you are missing some steps in how you managed to ignore #2-#5, or assume that everyone who doesn't like Trump's policies uses Amazon, is aware of this boycott, is prepared to buy elsewhere, and bothered to sign the petition.
I hope you can see where you went wrong.
Actually, no. My thought was "Where are all the people who find Trump's policies loathsome enough to actually vote with their wallet?". IOW, where the hell are all these members of society who find Trump loathsome? Where are all the boycotts of his business? Why do Trump protesters number in the fractions of a percentage compared to his supporters?
As narcc put it above (and to which I replied), society determines the norms, and from where I sit there simply aren't enough Americans who find Trump or his policies loathsome to form a significant percentage of the population.
Again, you may want to look for more meaningful numbers to support that belief. The numbers you're using to support that assertion couldn't be less useful.
Actually, no I don't. The number of people in the boycott/I-Loathe-Trump camp are barely a statistical error. Why do I need to look for more numbers?
It would be more useful to look at the number of people who actually support Trumps views, rather than the number of people who signed an obscure petition. For your own sanity, I'd recommend against further investigation.
I did not claim that his views were supported. I said that they do not appear to be as loathsome to society as you seem to think they are.
As for public shaming, that's really what decides what ideas are and are not accepted by a society.
Looking at the tiny, almost insignificant support for boycotting Trump from Amazon, I'd say that society in general has already decided that Trumps views are not as loathsome as you appear to find them.
Yes, because "not less than" is exactly the same thing as "strictly greater than", right?
Did you fail math in elementary school or something?
When a statistical truth meets a political ideology, which do you think will come off better? Fact is, given two variables X and Y, if X is never allowed to fall below whatever Y is at that point in time, then it is a statistical certainty that X will always average higher than Y. Always.
I was thinking more about his comments that certain women only got their jobs because of their looks, or that saying things he doesn't like must be because they are menstruating.
Neither of those things are examples of misogyny. An attack against individual women is not an attack on all women. You need to read a dictionary definition of misogyny. Here's one here.
Slashdot Mirror
It will still be diluted and changed.
http://genetics.thetech.org/as...
From the link: A bit of recombination with the X, some recombination with itself, and a few uncaught errors makes for a slightly different Y.
My point still stands. My Y chromosome will not be diluted to nothing after a few generations.
So how would you propose changing the law to make this better?
I do not propose to change it (meaning, paternity testing laws). Any replacement would probably be much worse than the current set of laws. The best option is what I stated above - secretly test, and test again, and then only when you're sure you dispute paternity and/or file for divorce (if married).
Well, you post some awfully silly things, so it's not unexpected that you get awfully silly replies.
More insults? Really? Well Done!
I can think of at least three things that would bring me greater shame than knowing the child I've been raising isn't mine.
Who says it's about shame?
Well, given that the test says that on the whole women don't in fact tend to do that, why would they need to say anything about it?
TFA didn't say that: it said that, over the last 400 years women didn't do that. TFA didn't give any numbers for the present (say, 20 years or so? Single generation?).
In quite a lot of ways, humans are not built to be monomagous. Many societies expect people to vully monomagous. These things clash and the results are, well, predictable.
Humans generally do serial monogamy. However it is only recently that societies stopped punishing infidelity, so who knows what the current state of cuckoldry looks like. This study certainly didn't release the numbers (if it did, I missed 'em). For the majority of the previous 400 years infidelity on the part of the female was punished.
The link doesn't support your assertion.
Well, it was not a blanket assertion - see here where I hedged my bets with "I might be wrong".
in some cases if a considerable amount of time has passed the interests of the child might take precedence.
That bit is why I said "So, the sane thing to do in France is to contest every birth."
Can you explain why it's unfair?
I never said it was. I said the best (legal) option is to simply contest paternity of every child. The best (non-legal) option would be to simply order the home-test kit, do the test secretly and only contest if the home-test gives you reason to believe that you might not be the father.
However, my personal experience with (maybe) ten or so women who were married to someone else is that I felt *much* safer ejaculating into them than with the single women I've been with.
Question: are these hypotheticals or are you actually bragging about your conquests on slashdot?
Why would I *now* brag about conquests? I've never done so before, regardless of the number of times I get told by people-without-an-argument that I must be a lonely virgin sitting in a basement somewhere. IOW - I've had plenty of opportunities to respond to abrasive comments questioning my sex-life before now and I've not actually done so, with one exception.
FWIW, just look at all the responses to my comments over the past year or so from PopeRatzo - 9 out of 10 are simply insults at my masculinity. Had I be the type to boast about conquests I would have taken advantage of a number of opportunities already afforded to me by the crowd that insists on filling every discussion with insults.
Do you have a reference for that? I couldn't find anything, but then again I don't speak much French so it's hard to search.
It's hard to find a non-french reference, but here's a pretty detailed english explanation of *all* a child's paternal rights (not just the bit you wanted to know) - see link. Note that the link itself has a link to the original french document, but you'll have to use google translate on it.
Wikipedia also says "This is partially due to the official desire to "preserve the peace" within French families, with the French government citing psychologists who state that fatherhood is determined by society, rather than biology. "
The posting was misleading. Paternity testing is not illegal in France, but it's regulated and needs either the consent of both (presumed) parents or a court order (which seems to be the same as where I am, in the UK). If there's a dispute over child support payments then a court order would be the way to go.
I might be wrong, but the info I got was that once someone signs up as the father when the child is born (in or out of wedlock), then that man is on the hook regardless of what any paternity test says.
This sort of supports my belief - "This is partially due to the official desire to "preserve the peace" within French families, with the French government citing psychologists who state that fatherhood is determined by society, rather than biology. "
So, yeah - no point in paternity testing if you're still on the hook for child-support.
Plus you really think people thing about everything they do that deeply?
No, we don't. However, my personal experience with (maybe) ten or so women who were married to someone else is that I felt *much* safer ejaculating into them than with the single women I've been with. I don't need to calculate the odds - it just felt safer than with the single women.
It doesn't take deep thought to think "it won't be my problem".
Yes. But for some reason, there are not 50 men per woman in the world, the actual ratio is quite close to 1:1. So why do you ignore the 49 other women?
The ratio is not 1:1 in war-torn areas, and the GP did say "Africa".
(No axe, just saying that historically, the numbers of men:women were less than 1:1).
That is incorrect. Paternity testing is legal in France.
It's legal but ignored - at birth, whichever man signs the form that says he is the father is on the hook for child support even if paternity testing later reveals he is a cuckold. So, the sane thing to do in France is to contest every birth.
In the grand scope of things, your DNA is basically diluted to nothing after a couple of generations.
Nope. I'm a guy. My Y chromosome is not going to get diluted to nothing after a few generations as long as those generations include males.
Recently, a French journalist was astounded by the fact that in America, paternity testing is 100% safe and 100% legal. He stated that such ideas are inconceivable in France.
You know, I broadly agree, but c'mon - if you want to be taken seriously at least link something in English.
Who cares if it ain't yours?
So you have no reservations about an alpha male copulating with a desirable female before you do, and then leaving you with the emotional and financial burden of his conquest (in the form of offspring)? I'm sure every guy who has ever ejaculated in a woman who wasn't his wife has at least once thought "This could cause complications.....but that's ok, some schmuck will come along and pick up the pieces." You're ok being that hypothetical schmuck?
That would be more accurate if you change the bolded parts to "Someone else's wife".
Until now...
Because the number you are basing your argument on is clearly not accurate. This is just the number of people who:
1. Consider Trump's positions dangerous 2. Are aware of the proposed boycott 3. Buy from Amazon 4. Are willing to stop buying from Amazon 5. Bothered to sign the petition
Whereas you are assuming this is the number of people who:
1. Consider Trump's positions dangerous
Clearly there is some sort of gap in your thought process, as you are missing some steps in how you managed to ignore #2-#5, or assume that everyone who doesn't like Trump's policies uses Amazon, is aware of this boycott, is prepared to buy elsewhere, and bothered to sign the petition.
I hope you can see where you went wrong.
Actually, no. My thought was "Where are all the people who find Trump's policies loathsome enough to actually vote with their wallet?". IOW, where the hell are all these members of society who find Trump loathsome? Where are all the boycotts of his business? Why do Trump protesters number in the fractions of a percentage compared to his supporters?
As narcc put it above (and to which I replied), society determines the norms, and from where I sit there simply aren't enough Americans who find Trump or his policies loathsome to form a significant percentage of the population.
Again, you may want to look for more meaningful numbers to support that belief. The numbers you're using to support that assertion couldn't be less useful.
Actually, no I don't. The number of people in the boycott/I-Loathe-Trump camp are barely a statistical error. Why do I need to look for more numbers?
It would be more useful to look at the number of people who actually support Trumps views, rather than the number of people who signed an obscure petition. For your own sanity, I'd recommend against further investigation.
I did not claim that his views were supported. I said that they do not appear to be as loathsome to society as you seem to think they are.
As for public shaming, that's really what decides what ideas are and are not accepted by a society.
Looking at the tiny, almost insignificant support for boycotting Trump from Amazon, I'd say that society in general has already decided that Trumps views are not as loathsome as you appear to find them.
Yes, because "not less than" is exactly the same thing as "strictly greater than", right?
Did you fail math in elementary school or something?
When a statistical truth meets a political ideology, which do you think will come off better? Fact is, given two variables X and Y, if X is never allowed to fall below whatever Y is at that point in time, then it is a statistical certainty that X will always average higher than Y. Always.
I was thinking more about his comments that certain women only got their jobs because of their looks, or that saying things he doesn't like must be because they are menstruating.
Neither of those things are examples of misogyny. An attack against individual women is not an attack on all women. You need to read a dictionary definition of misogyny. Here's one here.
And the Tesla's only maintenance item is tires.
I think this sentence best describes the "informed Tesla-buyer" demographic. They're clueless, and they don't know it.
Jesus, you self-centered fuckhead.
I don't owe you jack-fucking-shit. And neither do any of your co-workers.
When you adopted a dog, did you run to your co-workers and ask them to pay for your fucking Purina too, you arrogant douche?
You are quite an unpleasant person all around. Its good you have the self-awareness to not have kids.
Ignore him. The demographic "people who hate parents and refuses to be one themselves" is a self-solving problem for humanity.
There was another post about the people pushing for this law and how they are not women.
Many of the things being pushed "for women" are not being pushed *by* women anyway.