The Political Discussion Thread

[garhkal]

You should see me grumble when I have to work on a letter for the company I work for with regards to child benefits, which are always paid to the mother of the child, unless otherwise arranged through either court orders or mutual agreement among the parents.

Or like when i was in the Navy.. TWICE i had leave approved 2 months ahead of time.. And TWICE i got to the day OF Starting the leve, and had it canceled cause someone with kids "wanted to take them on a family trip somewhere'.. NO emergency leave. No pending medical issues.. BUT cause they were 'family people' and i was a single guy, I GOT Bummped out of the way, had my leave cancelled and on one of the cases, lost out on the plane ticket i had already purchased...

[Gatefan1976]

Why not paid to both?

Generally, it is the mother who deals with the kids. Also, you always -know- who the mother is, not always true for the father.

[aretood2]

Or like when i was in the Navy.. TWICE i had leave approved 2 months ahead of time.. And TWICE i got to the day OF Starting the leve, and had it canceled cause someone with kids "wanted to take them on a family trip somewhere'.. NO emergency leave. No pending medical issues.. BUT cause they were 'family people' and i was a single guy, I GOT Bummped out of the way, had my leave cancelled and on one of the cases, lost out on the plane ticket i had already purchased...

Because kids are of the devil?

Generally, it is the mother who deals with the kids. Also, you always -know- who the mother is, not always true for the father.

I don't see how that is relevant if we are talking about a married couple with neither denying parentage.

[Gatefan1976]

I don't see how that is relevant if we are talking about a married couple with neither denying parentage.

Then look to the social order. Even me being the stay at home parent, it was Mrs GF who got the child support money. I could have gotten it changed, but I never bothered to.

[Gatefan1976]

Sigh.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...gibberish.html

[Annoyed]

Generally, it is the mother who deals with the kids. Also, you always -know- who the mother is, not always true for the father.

That could be solved, but neither you or the society we live in want to hear it let alone carry out the answer.

[Gatefan1976]

That could be solved, but neither you or the society we live in want to hear it let alone carry out the answer.

Sorry what?
Let me parrot you, I live in the real world not the fantasy you want to live in.

[thekillman]

That could be solved, but neither you or the society we live in want to hear it let alone carry out the answer.

Are you aware of how sex works?

[Womble]

That could be solved, but neither you or the society we live in want to hear it let alone carry out the answer.

If it could be solved, there would have been a society out there that has found a solution...

[Annoyed]

The solution is simple.

Before a woman is awarded one dime of welfare benefits or court-ordered child support from any source, she must name the sperm donor, and this must be confirmed by either the purported sperm donor admitting that it is his, or DNA testing to prove paternity.
This way, you identify the sperm donor and he can be held responsible to whatever extent is possible.
And yes, you can turn this around in rare circumstances when the mother is not identified.

However, good luck enacting this in our society. I don't think people would accept it.

[Annoyed]

Ok, I'm definitely of a divided opinion on this.

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/13...in-california/

California has become the first state to require all stores that sell dogs, cats and rabbits to offer adoptable pets from shelters and nonprofit rescue groups instead of through breeders or puppy mills.

I strongly agree with the goal; putting puppy/kitten mills out of business. Many of those places treat their animals horribly, and there are more than enough unwanted pets to fulfill the need for pets. I would like to see those mills driven out of business.

But I shudder to think about the state interference in the operation of privately held businesses & the state's trampling upon the rights of those business owners. Yes, mandate humane treatment of all animals in these mills, certainly, but this act crosses a line, setting a precedent that I don't think should be set.

Maybe this goal should be pursued via a public education campaign geared towards making it socially unacceptable to purchase or own "mill" animals as pets.

[Womble]

The solution is simple.

Before a woman is awarded one dime of welfare benefits or court-ordered child support from any source, she must name the sperm donor, and this must be confirmed by either the purported sperm donor admitting that it is his, or DNA testing to prove paternity.
This way, you identify the sperm donor and he can be held responsible to whatever extent is possible.
And yes, you can turn this around in rare circumstances when the mother is not identified.

However, good luck enacting this in our society. I don't think people would accept it.

If that solution is so simple, why did no other society ever try it?

[Gatefan1976]

Ok, I'm definitely of a divided opinion on this.

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/13...in-california/



I strongly agree with the goal; putting puppy/kitten mills out of business. Many of those places treat their animals horribly, and there are more than enough unwanted pets to fulfill the need for pets. I would like to see those mills driven out of business.

But I shudder to think about the state interference in the operation of privately held businesses & the state's trampling upon the rights of those business owners. Yes, mandate humane treatment of all animals in these mills, certainly, but this act crosses a line, setting a precedent that I don't think should be set.

Perish the thought of threatening the corporate monarchy

Maybe this goal should be pursued via a public education campaign geared towards making it socially unacceptable to purchase or own "mill" animals as pets.

Can we try that with Mill(itary) grade weapons?

[Annoyed]

Perish the thought of threatening the corporate monarchy

Can we try that with Mill(itary) grade weapons?

You can try it with anything you like, Free speech and all that. If you want to run an advertising or propaganda campaign which aims to make it socially unacceptable for private citizens to own military grade weapons, have at it. You just can't use the power of govt. to force your view, that's all.

[Annoyed]

If that solution is so simple, why did no other society ever try it?

Because as I stated, no society that I can think of, with the possible exception of religious theocracies, would find the disclosure requirements acceptable.