Incel

[Throndor]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

im disinclined to ascribe terrible social policy to some sort of conspiracy. the issue of single-motherhood is a problem that is not easily solved. i think subsidizing it is morally wrong from an humanist perspective, but we don't want children starving either.

I seriously doubt that any woman is more inclined to behave irresponsibly because she
thinks the state will just take care of her. that's a silly argument. what is true though is that in the absence of state susbsidy there would be greater social pressure on women and more importantly men to behave responsibly. men are responsible for providing for their children and women are responsible for selecting responsible men to father their children.

Men and women are inherently irresponsible though, so what do we do? shame men and women for destructive behavior rather than exalting it and dismissing the consequences. social pressure needs to be amplified to a level that it provides sufficient deterrent or we end up the the dreary world of state-sponsored solutions, which ultimately demand surrender of liberties.

Why is the government charging a 2 to 3% "rake" on child support withholdings? In doing so they have blurred the lines of impartiality, and incentivized themselves to award increasingly large sums in the form of child support awards.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Throndor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why is the government charging a 2 to 3% "rake" on child support withholdings? In doing so they have blurred the lines of impartiality, and incentivized themselves to award increasingly large sums in the form of child support awards.

not familiar with what you are talking about. how is the "rake" applied/implemented?

[Madbad]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

im disinclined to ascribe terrible social policy to some sort of conspiracy. the issue of single-motherhood is a problem that is not easily solved. i think subsidizing it is morally wrong from an humanist perspective, but we don't want children starving either.

I seriously doubt that any woman is more inclined to behave irresponsibly because she
thinks the state will just take care of her. that's a silly argument. what is true though is that in the absence of state susbsidy there would be greater social pressure on women and more importantly men to behave responsibly. men are responsible for providing for their children and women are responsible for selecting responsible men to father their children.

Men and women are inherently irresponsible though, so what do we do? shame men and women for destructive behavior rather than exalting it and dismissing the consequences. social pressure needs to be amplified to a level that it provides sufficient deterrent or we end up the the dreary world of state-sponsored solutions, which ultimately demand surrender of liberties.

Holy fuck, an intelligent argument for conservatism!

[Irulan]

MM has always frustrated me with their intelligence O.o

[Throndor]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

not familiar with what you are talking about. how is the "rake" applied/implemented?

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov...d-support-fees

As we know, "fees" exist within a grey area of the law, in that approval to increase, or add on to them, does not require voter approval.

In california, traffic court violations have limits on the amounts that can be assessed on "fines". Increasing "fines" requires voter approval. To circumnavigate those pesky voters, California adds an exhaustive list of "fees" to each traffic fine assessed often ballooning the total amount due for an infraction to well over 100% higher than the base voter-approved "fine".

Furthermore, if the custodial parent ever finds themselves in a position where the noncustodial parent is unable to meet their child support obligations, thus amassing past due child support referred to as "arrears", and the custodial parent is forced to seek government assistance though TANF (welfare) the custodial parent must sign a legal document that transfers ownership of ALL arrears owed by the noncustodial parent to the state. This includes a non-compounding 10% post-additive interest account that is addressed after the principal arrear balance reaches 0$, so when the government takes ownership on the arrears they are literally making interest on the arrears as well as is the custodial parent if they avoid welfare and retain ownership of the arrears themselves.

Thus, the state has placed themselves in an advantageous position when it comes to policing child support obligationgs two-fold, because if the custodial parent is not making enough money AT THIS TIME to make ends meet, and they seek government assistance, they essentially must do so with the government leveraging their temporary need for assistance into a much longer lasting obligation to the state for recompense that often exceeds any temporary benefits received by the state.

Basically, you have to go full blown permanent loser to actually pull ahead on the "take".

Ive been trying to tell all of you guys for several days now, that your perceptions, while understandable, are not always correct.

By and large, the government is not out there benevolently bestowing prosperity on the downtrodden, theyre just taking our money and offering the bottom rung the bare minimum necessary to survive. If we gave them 100% of our money they would still just give all of us the bare minimum to survive in return. The savior the left is looking for does not reside within the ranks of the government.

[Kaight]

You 👏🏻 are 👏🏻 not 👏🏻 entitled 👏🏻 to 👏🏻 sex 👏🏻 or 👏🏻 a 👏🏻 relationship 👏🏻 with 👏🏻 a 👏🏻 woman 👏🏻 simply 👏🏻 because 👏🏻 you 👏🏻 are 👏🏻 a 👏🏻 man.

[Throndor]

Pleasant lies are often the most nefarious.

Amanita Phalloides is rumored to have rather sweet nectar.

By the time symptoms appear, it is often too late to save those foolish enough to imbibe them.

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by Kaight [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You 👏🏻 are 👏🏻 not 👏🏻 entitled 👏🏻 to 👏🏻 sex 👏🏻 or 👏🏻 a 👏🏻 relationship 👏🏻 with 👏🏻 a 👏🏻 woman 👏🏻 simply 👏🏻 because 👏🏻 you 👏🏻 are 👏🏻 a 👏🏻 man.

If I call you "cute" enough times, you are legally obligated to sex me.

Welcome to Trump's America.

The incel shall inherit the earth.

*stares at Kaight while speed dialing attorney*

[Wonkie]

one thing to remember when dating the tattooed is to wrap it up

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Kaight [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You 👏🏻 are 👏🏻 not 👏🏻 entitled 👏🏻 to 👏🏻 sex 👏🏻 or 👏🏻 a 👏🏻 relationship 👏🏻 with 👏🏻 a 👏🏻 woman 👏🏻 simply 👏🏻 because 👏🏻 you 👏🏻 are 👏🏻 a 👏🏻 man.

lol this is exactly why there are incels now, women have become this.