And when UBI replaces all those programs and a opioid addicted parent blows all their cash on drugs and they have no food will you let them starve to death?
Jesus, Vladimir. If all you can do is come up with histrionics like "what happens when an opioid addicted crackhead alien sticks a probe up my ass???!? UBI WILL NEVER WORK!! REEEEEE!"... maybe your argument is flawed.
You have a subset of the population that is not capable of handling cash money in a responsible manner.
Well GOSH-A-GOLLY! Let's let all those people who literally cannot get a job because robots are driving trucks and cabs and every other form of labor that can be automated just fuckin' starve because "a subset of the population is not capable of handling money in a responsible manner"! That'll show those fucks!
Who gives a flying fuck what you personally believe? There are trusted sources of these kinds of statistics in case you ever decide to stop being a self-righteous, judgmental prick.
Yep. It's very ironic that companies won't spend the money it takes for senior devs to mentor junior devs, but they seem to have all sorts of money to spend having senior devs fix the shit code that comes in from offshore teams.
"but at the expense of the environment, debt, justice, fairness, freedom, etc."
lolwut? Hyperbolic? Have you actually seen what Pruitt has done to the EPA? Noticed all of the uber-religious, completely unqualified judges he's appointed FOR LIFE? The attacks on the Fourth Estate -- really, one of the few things that keep us from descending into complete Oligarchy? You, my AC friend have a laughably low bar for hyperbole.
None of the policies or actions that dominate today's political landscape effect me in the slightest.
Unless you're a multi-millionaire, you are quite incorrect. Your taxes are going to go up in a few years, to begin with.
Ajit? Is that you? Don't you have a blowjob to give to Verizon right about now?
Nice diversion, but it is entirely irrelevant if Netflix charged for those boxes, or imposed operating conditions on those powers (OMG! They have to have POWER! They have to put it in a ROOM! The Horrors!).
The relevant thing is that I pay my ISP for a certain amount of throughput. Deliver the packets, mmkay? It's none of my ISPs business where I make requests from. It isn't their business if a service I subscribe to is GASP popular! Deliver the fucking packets, mmkay?
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. I suspect many things don't mean what you think they do given your display of logic and projection.
Now then, it is true that I inserted the word "plurality" when you didn't say it; I simply couldn't imagine that your whole rant was based on the idea that SOMETIMES a man is forced to support a child that isn't biologically his. After all, in this society of ours, innocent people sometimes go to jail and innocent pedestrians get mowed down by cars. The truly revealing thing about you is that your protest isn't "shit sometimes happens", or even "unjust shit sometimes happens", but "unjust shit sometimes happens to men".
A point of MRA's that I agree with is that US courts can know for certain that a man was purposely defrauded of child support by a woman who knew he was not the father of a child, and will rule that he must still pay child support in spite of this.
It's true, courts can establish paternity with a high degree of accuracy. What you fail to realize is that paternity is not the only thing the courts consider, and indeed, paternity isn't really even their primary concern. Their primary concern is ensuring the needs of the child get met, which is an entirely justified standard, wouldn't you agree? Their primary reality is that family situations can get incredibly complicated, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution, wouldn't you agree? Judges are also aware that children who grow up on poverty are more likely to turn to crime and reappear before them years later, and so it is for the greater good of society that children are supported financially, wouldn't you agree?
Now I'm happy to agree with you that there is a LOT of nuance in any given family situation, and as often as not the women and/or child is victimized as well when a father is forced to assume paternity (For example, in the case of violently abusive exes) and quite often unfortunate, even unjust outcomes appear. I fully support efforts to give courts more latitude and training and techniques to find more just outcomes. But in the end, shit is gonna happen, and sometimes shit is gonna happen to Joe Blow after a one night stand.
Point toward the feminist organization that is standing up for this injustice and offering the services of their attorneys pro bono
Uhh, sure, right after you point out where the Sierra Club offers the services of their attorneys pro bono to industrial polluters? Or even day care centers? Here's a hint: that's not something on the Sierra Club's mission statement. Their attorneys are already pretty busy doing, you know, protecting nature shit. Hey! Here's a thought! Why don't MRA organizations hire attorneys to litigate on the issues they care about?
Now point to the feminist organizations that are fighting for more maternity and paternity leave. I doubt you have enough fingers to do that, because they all are
It is unclear to me why would you think that organizations uniting to fight for an issue everyone agrees upon proves some sort of point?
So why would a feminist or feminist organization chastise another organization for not repeating the efforts of a massive number of other organizations?
This is a pretty vague. This is a where a citation or two would help your audience understand what the fuck you're ranting about.
Propaganda. Tactics. Outright foolish lies. Distraction. Pick your poison, because that's all it is.
My, what lovely hyperbole. Too bad it came after such a poorly worded assertion. Who knows, if you had made a clear assertion you might have even persuaded someone who didn't already agree with whatever it is you said.
Why the fuck would men paying child support for children that AREN'T THEIRS want better parental leave?
Whoa there snowflake. Take a chill pill and then come back with some kind of evidence to support your assertion that a plurality of men are supporting children that aren't theirs. Otherwise maybe respond to the OP's assertion with something other than a diversion? Wouldn't an actual MRA movement fight for things like better parental leave for men, rather than just bitching about feminism?
Also, if a group says they are for men's rights, but calls the big bad enemy "the Patriarchy," you know without a doubt exactly what they think of men's rights.
oooh! Teh wurds r EVILLL!!! BIG BAD "PATRIARCHY"!! Would your ego feel less maligned if we named the objective reality in which men control more or less everything "noodleplurgh"? Or do we have your permission to keep calling it "patriarchy"?
Based on what you have already written, calling you a liar would be a compliment.
Oooh! Snowflake IZ ANGREEE! REEEEE!
Seriously though snowflake, you might wanna get your sippy cup and sit in the corner while you contemplate what it is that triggered you so violently. (Can I use that word? "Contemplate"? Is that OK? I wouldn't want to trigger you.)
What's more, your earlier outline how many men misunderstand the terms of feminism (privileged, toxic masculinity, etc). Well, isn't that evidence that feminism is NOT about fighting against toxic assumptions about men, but rather creating more of it? Feminist jargon is giving men wrong ideas and making them more confused, not less.
Seriously? You're blaming the words feminists use to describe objective reality for the existence of MRAs? That's... interesting logic. Here's a small correction: No, feminist "jargon" isn't giving men wrong ideas and making them more confused, the failure to FIND A FUCKING DICTIONARY is.
Feminism has utterly failed these men, failing to explain themselves and losing those men to groups that "mislead" them (nice toxic assumption there, that if they're not on your side they be being "misled")
What a lovely display of male privilege! 1) Feminism doesn't exist to serve men OR women; it exists to create equality across the sexes. 2) Feminists don't have a duty to explain words to people any more than a journalist has a duty to explain the words in an article they write. If you're curious, look it up. If you're lazy,
bitch about how feminists have failed men or how journalists use big words.
For the rich pricks buying the Congresscritters sure! Itâ(TM)s a steal at twice the price.
For the rest of us, not so much. After all,
someone has to pay for all those yachts and jets and corporate tax cuts. May as well be the poor schmucks with no voice in their own government.
That was actually Hillary's voice on that fake tape that doesn't exist. She's SO good at imitating Trump because she's desperate to be President (sad!) you've never heard a better Trump impersonator than Hillary. She's the BEST at being crooked. She's so good some people call her Crooked Hillary!
lol I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you cheap.
Free market my ass; the market hasn't been "free" for more than a decade at the very least. The hell of it is it's impossible to tell if your naive, stupid, or a paid shill.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness indeed. And props on getting the document correct. Most people think that's in the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.
But that said, "Life" necessarily includes food and shelter, no?
Not so much that, but more that NOT EVERY JOB out there is meant to be made a career of, nor sole source of income to support yourself/family.
Every full time job is, by definition, meant to be. It needs to be structurally as well, else we will see this scenario everywhere. Unrestrained, Capitalists will ride carts made from people like you over people like those poor schmucks who end up working for $2/hour to their vision of paradise, which is paradise for them and dystopia for everyone else. Even that Deity of Capitalism Adam Smith warned of the dangers of unrestrained Capitalism.
I don't think setting the boundary at "private enterprises cannot socialize the costs of their labor onto taxpayers in the form of welfare" is an unreasonable boundary. In fact, as a taxpayer, I think it's a necessary boundary. But if you don't, that's cool. Maybe we can structure the tax code so that people like you can pay more towards the inevitable explosion of welfare costs the policies you advocate will result in.
Well, for those keeping score, we've got ever-more-desperate whiny AC bitch getting his ass handed to him: 0, Rei: all the points. I don't know where these Tesla bears keep coming from. Must be from the Masochists Anonymous meetings.
WE are watching. WE know what he is doing. We SEE the accounts and you ARE full of shit.
YOUR opinions are irrelevant.
Tasty your tears are; cry more of them you should.
There is roughly $80 trillion dollars of currency floating around in the world today. The value of all of the gold ever mined in the history of humanity is $7.8 trillion. There simply isn't enough gold to go to a gold standard. What's that you say? A healthy market will simply hike the price of gold ten times over so it roughly matches? Sure, you could do that, but then be prepared to pay a couple million bucks for your next smartphone, since electronics make extensive use of precious metals.
Anchoring a currency to a precious metal is stupid in a bunch of different ways, to say nothing of the fact that there is literally not enough of it to actually do it.
Great, there's a couple hundred of you with guns? A couple thousand in the bigger country towns?
There are 13 *million* people in the Los Angeles Metro area, and a sizable number of them have guns. If they ever have to flee to the country your "no trespassing" signs and guns won't do shit except get you and your family dead. You'll probably take a few with you, but that's cold comfort.
You ARE aware that being a 'n ig g e r' has nothing to do with whether you're black or white-skinned, right
You ARE aware that nobody in the HISTORY of that word used it in such a manner?
You ARE aware that the only people who actually make this claim are racists trying to revise history and rationalize their use that word at the same time, right?
Fucking pussy AC racists. As if we didn't know you were an asshole to begin with, hiding behind AC proves it.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus, Vladimir. If all you can do is come up with histrionics like "what happens when an opioid addicted crackhead alien sticks a probe up my ass???!? UBI WILL NEVER WORK!! REEEEEE!"... maybe your argument is flawed.
Well GOSH-A-GOLLY! Let's let all those people who literally cannot get a job because robots are driving trucks and cabs and every other form of labor that can be automated just fuckin' starve because "a subset of the population is not capable of handling money in a responsible manner"! That'll show those fucks!
Who gives a flying fuck what you personally believe? There are trusted sources of these kinds of statistics in case you ever decide to stop being a self-righteous, judgmental prick.
Says one AC to another AC.
Lol an AC that shitposts and then answers themselves. Don't you have a post to write on Vietnamese Facebook, Vladimir?
Yep. It's very ironic that companies won't spend the money it takes for senior devs to mentor junior devs, but they seem to have all sorts of money to spend having senior devs fix the shit code that comes in from offshore teams.
lolwut? Hyperbolic? Have you actually seen what Pruitt has done to the EPA? Noticed all of the uber-religious, completely unqualified judges he's appointed FOR LIFE? The attacks on the Fourth Estate -- really, one of the few things that keep us from descending into complete Oligarchy? You, my AC friend have a laughably low bar for hyperbole.
Unless you're a multi-millionaire, you are quite incorrect. Your taxes are going to go up in a few years, to begin with.
TIL TY :)
Ajit? Is that you? Don't you have a blowjob to give to Verizon right about now?
Nice diversion, but it is entirely irrelevant if Netflix charged for those boxes, or imposed operating conditions on those powers (OMG! They have to have POWER! They have to put it in a ROOM! The Horrors!).
The relevant thing is that I pay my ISP for a certain amount of throughput. Deliver the packets, mmkay? It's none of my ISPs business where I make requests from. It isn't their business if a service I subscribe to is GASP popular! Deliver the fucking packets, mmkay?
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. I suspect many things don't mean what you think they do given your display of logic and projection.
Now then, it is true that I inserted the word "plurality" when you didn't say it; I simply couldn't imagine that your whole rant was based on the idea that SOMETIMES a man is forced to support a child that isn't biologically his. After all, in this society of ours, innocent people sometimes go to jail and innocent pedestrians get mowed down by cars. The truly revealing thing about you is that your protest isn't "shit sometimes happens", or even "unjust shit sometimes happens", but "unjust shit sometimes happens to men".
It's true, courts can establish paternity with a high degree of accuracy. What you fail to realize is that paternity is not the only thing the courts consider, and indeed, paternity isn't really even their primary concern. Their primary concern is ensuring the needs of the child get met, which is an entirely justified standard, wouldn't you agree? Their primary reality is that family situations can get incredibly complicated, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution, wouldn't you agree? Judges are also aware that children who grow up on poverty are more likely to turn to crime and reappear before them years later, and so it is for the greater good of society that children are supported financially, wouldn't you agree?
Now I'm happy to agree with you that there is a LOT of nuance in any given family situation, and as often as not the women and/or child is victimized as well when a father is forced to assume paternity (For example, in the case of violently abusive exes) and quite often unfortunate, even unjust outcomes appear. I fully support efforts to give courts more latitude and training and techniques to find more just outcomes. But in the end, shit is gonna happen, and sometimes shit is gonna happen to Joe Blow after a one night stand.
Uhh, sure, right after you point out where the Sierra Club offers the services of their attorneys pro bono to industrial polluters? Or even day care centers? Here's a hint: that's not something on the Sierra Club's mission statement. Their attorneys are already pretty busy doing, you know, protecting nature shit. Hey! Here's a thought! Why don't MRA organizations hire attorneys to litigate on the issues they care about?
It is unclear to me why would you think that organizations uniting to fight for an issue everyone agrees upon proves some sort of point?
This is a pretty vague. This is a where a citation or two would help your audience understand what the fuck you're ranting about.
My, what lovely hyperbole. Too bad it came after such a poorly worded assertion. Who knows, if you had made a clear assertion you might have even persuaded someone who didn't already agree with whatever it is you said.
Whoa there snowflake. Take a chill pill and then come back with some kind of evidence to support your assertion that a plurality of men are supporting children that aren't theirs. Otherwise maybe respond to the OP's assertion with something other than a diversion? Wouldn't an actual MRA movement fight for things like better parental leave for men, rather than just bitching about feminism?
oooh! Teh wurds r EVILLL!!! BIG BAD "PATRIARCHY"!! Would your ego feel less maligned if we named the objective reality in which men control more or less everything "noodleplurgh"? Or do we have your permission to keep calling it "patriarchy"?
Oooh! Snowflake IZ ANGREEE! REEEEE!
Seriously though snowflake, you might wanna get your sippy cup and sit in the corner while you contemplate what it is that triggered you so violently. (Can I use that word? "Contemplate"? Is that OK? I wouldn't want to trigger you.)
Seriously? You're blaming the words feminists use to describe objective reality for the existence of MRAs? That's... interesting logic. Here's a small correction: No, feminist "jargon" isn't giving men wrong ideas and making them more confused, the failure to FIND A FUCKING DICTIONARY is.
What a lovely display of male privilege! 1) Feminism doesn't exist to serve men OR women; it exists to create equality across the sexes. 2) Feminists don't have a duty to explain words to people any more than a journalist has a duty to explain the words in an article they write. If you're curious, look it up. If you're lazy, bitch about how feminists have failed men or how journalists use big words.
For the rich pricks buying the Congresscritters sure! Itâ(TM)s a steal at twice the price. For the rest of us, not so much. After all, someone has to pay for all those yachts and jets and corporate tax cuts. May as well be the poor schmucks with no voice in their own government.
Yea? Say something bad about Linux here and see what happens.
Clearly you have never heard of the Internal Revenue Service or the United States Government.
That was actually Hillary's voice on that fake tape that doesn't exist. She's SO good at imitating Trump because she's desperate to be President (sad!) you've never heard a better Trump impersonator than Hillary. She's the BEST at being crooked. She's so good some people call her Crooked Hillary!
Ohhh! Ice cream! Two scoops for me!
Who the fuck is trusting the government to make neutrality neutral? Trust the routers dumbass. Packet prioritization is easy to test, right?
These two things are not mutually exclusive. Profit incentives them to enter a market, and also to game it to their advantage.
lol I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you cheap.
Free market my ass; the market hasn't been "free" for more than a decade at the very least. The hell of it is it's impossible to tell if your naive, stupid, or a paid shill.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness indeed. And props on getting the document correct. Most people think that's in the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.
But that said, "Life" necessarily includes food and shelter, no?
Every full time job is, by definition, meant to be. It needs to be structurally as well, else we will see this scenario everywhere. Unrestrained, Capitalists will ride carts made from people like you over people like those poor schmucks who end up working for $2/hour to their vision of paradise, which is paradise for them and dystopia for everyone else. Even that Deity of Capitalism Adam Smith warned of the dangers of unrestrained Capitalism.
I don't think setting the boundary at "private enterprises cannot socialize the costs of their labor onto taxpayers in the form of welfare" is an unreasonable boundary. In fact, as a taxpayer, I think it's a necessary boundary. But if you don't, that's cool. Maybe we can structure the tax code so that people like you can pay more towards the inevitable explosion of welfare costs the policies you advocate will result in.
Oh gosh AC! Because we all know we can totally trust YOUR word!
Well, for those keeping score, we've got ever-more-desperate whiny AC bitch getting his ass handed to him: 0, Rei: all the points. I don't know where these Tesla bears keep coming from. Must be from the Masochists Anonymous meetings.
Tasty your tears are; cry more of them you should.
There is roughly $80 trillion dollars of currency floating around in the world today. The value of all of the gold ever mined in the history of humanity is $7.8 trillion. There simply isn't enough gold to go to a gold standard. What's that you say? A healthy market will simply hike the price of gold ten times over so it roughly matches? Sure, you could do that, but then be prepared to pay a couple million bucks for your next smartphone, since electronics make extensive use of precious metals.
Anchoring a currency to a precious metal is stupid in a bunch of different ways, to say nothing of the fact that there is literally not enough of it to actually do it.
Great, there's a couple hundred of you with guns? A couple thousand in the bigger country towns?
There are 13 *million* people in the Los Angeles Metro area, and a sizable number of them have guns. If they ever have to flee to the country your "no trespassing" signs and guns won't do shit except get you and your family dead. You'll probably take a few with you, but that's cold comfort.
Yea, but "642, the number of the beast" isn't nearly as dramatic....
You ARE aware that nobody in the HISTORY of that word used it in such a manner?
You ARE aware that the only people who actually make this claim are racists trying to revise history and rationalize their use that word at the same time, right?
Fucking pussy AC racists. As if we didn't know you were an asshole to begin with, hiding behind AC proves it.