Buggernut Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Children are not property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Not his children, not his problem. Better? Notch one up for baiting and entrapping somebody into parental responsibilities for other people's children. Score one for deceipt and dishonesty. If the state wants them fed and raised, why doesn't it step up to the task, instead of putting the burden on an unwilling individual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 That seems very twisted and bitter. The goal is the the best interests of the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 The best interests of the child meaning what exactly? Does the court force the man to take the kids skiing? Spend time on weekends? Help with homework? Or is the only issue here the financial well being of the children? Sounds to me this is about financially supporting the child. Again, why the man and not the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 The best interests of the child meaning what exactly? Does the court force the man to take the kids skiing? Spend time on weekends? Help with homework? Or is the only issue here the financial well being of the children? Sounds to me this is about financially supporting the child. Again, why the man and not the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Got some good, old fashioned misogyny going in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Got some good, old fashioned misogyny going in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 It is ever thus at CDC, eh Stawns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Got some good, old fashioned misogyny going in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Your use of the word property showed your mindset on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Yeah, God forbid we don't let them have their cake and eat it too, and absolve them of all personal responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I'm presuming you're meaning like men have for, oh, all recorded history. Don't be so butthurt when a woman acts the way many a man has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I was just casually throwing around a variation of the phrase "not my property, not my problem". Sorry you have to raise such a stink about it. It does accurately reflect the mindset to me that other people's children are other people's problems that I can shrug off causally as such, though. He was tricked. He was duped. He was lied to. The person who did the tricking, duping and lying should pick up ALL the costs of her actions, including the full support of her kids. (Of course another right thing to do would be to track down their biological dads and go after them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 The use of the word "property" revealed a mindset. And it matters not that "He was tricked. He was duped. He was lied to." That is what the principle of "no fault" imports into the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Well, the law as it is has a huge fault to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 One thing that has bothered me about this thread more than anything is the title, "A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada." I actually think being a man in Canada has worked out pretty well, for the most part. I mean really, how easy should we really have it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 One thing that has bothered me about this thread more than anything is the title, "A reason it sucks to be a man in Canada." I actually think being a man in Canada has worked out pretty well, for the most part. I mean really, how easy should we really have it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I disagree.. as does Parliament, the provincial legislatures and the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I am not surprised that the governments at 2 levels want somebody else to pay, and since they have that power I'm even less surprised that the laws are set up that way. Some one must pay and it seems that society has swung way past fair in order to redress past wrongs.However all that does is shaft a different segment of todays society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Yet another logically and morally wrongful cost cutting measure brought to you by your friends in the Canadian government and those of its associated provinces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.