Minimum wage

October 28th, 2021 at 1:54:32 PM permalink
petroglyph
Member since: Aug 3, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 6227
Quote: Mission146
Quote: petroglyph
If only.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-tps03.html

"Approximately two-thirds (69.3 percent) of custodial parents who were due child support received some payments from noncustodial parents, while only 43.5 percent reported receiving the full amount of child support due"

"Of the 1.6 million custodial parents with incomes below the poverty level who were supposed to receive child support in 2015, 39.2 percent received full payments."

"https://brandongaille.com/23-deadbeat-dads-statistics/" There's just to many myriads of story's to post here. And many are conflicting. I was told [when I was paying child support] that at one time or other, as many as 85% of dads not in the household didn't pay cp or did not pay on time or the total amount ordered.

The statistics on missing dads and deadbeat dads should be added to any sex education classes taught in schools. Not claiming guys are bad, but the statistics say most absent fathers won't pay child support like they are supposed to. And there is really a lack of any enforcement to compel non paying ex spouses to pay up on time. Many of the single mothers I've spoken with think of child support after a few years of separation as a bonus payment because they get the subsidy so rarely.

IMO, fathers need to be named on birth certificates and there needs to be stricter enforcement on non paying spouses be they men or women. AFAIC, if you owe child support and aren't working or looking for work on the week ends, you may as well be in jail, or on a road gang, helping the state support your spawn.

rant over


You'll have to take that up with the Government of the State of Oregon. There was a section there for how much Court Ordered Child Support is monthly, so that has an impact on the SNAP benefits. It is they, not I, who are making the assumption that the mothers see 100% of the court ordered amount.
My rant wasn't directed toward you at all. Just making a statement. I have a relative that could really use the court ordered support for her kids. The father would rather not work and live off off anyone else that would house or feed him, than pay. I don't get it, but his belief system allows him certainty that it's not his duty to help support his kids, although they biologically are. In the two states he runs between working at oil field jobs [which pay pretty well] the states won't garnish his wages until he has been at a job for more than 45 days. He quits or gets fired at 44. Now over 100k behind in support. He will never pay it, and I would doubt he will ever accumulate much in his life, but watching how much it hurts those kids is really saddening. Good kids to.

I was loosely making a point that if sex education is going to be taught in schools, at least a few chapters should be devoted to the reality that most fathers at that age don't stick around, and don't help. So the majority of the raising of his kids falls on others. I'm not made like that.
The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury. GW
October 28th, 2021 at 2:02:06 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Mission146
Suppose his answer is, "No," what about his position would that make inconsistent? I'll answer, "No," at least, not any of them that I have ever met...and I don't foresee meeting one with whom I would. I've never met a 100 year old biological woman that I'd have sex with, either, but those are definitely women...not just guys that I am calling women to be polite and encouraging that everyone affords the same rights to to be fundamentally decent.


Here is the problem for him. He defends trans women as like any other kind of woman. A few posters here did. So I asked if they would have sex with one. Some initial hemming and hawing but everyone manned up (except him) and said no, they would not.

Now, he knows if he says "yes, he would" that means he would have sex with a biological male. If he says "no" he loses street cred with liberals because he is not saying they are a woman. So he posted a porn link instead.

The 100 year old woman thing is a faulty comparison. That is someone beyond your age who you would find unattractive. We are talking say a 30 year old woman or a 30 year old guy transitioned to claim he was a woman. Similar build, race, looks, etc. If you say the trans is a woman then if you would have sex with the actual woman and not the trans woman then you are de facto saying no, they are not an actual woman, which of course they are not.

It is like liberals on most things. They talk a big game but never walk the talk. Same as all those liberals who say they "don't need a tax cut" but do not give the money back. That are against global warming but live in huge houses. Just that in taxes and global warming they do not post links to porn sites and claim it is an answer.
The President is a fink.
October 28th, 2021 at 2:02:51 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: JimRockford
That imagery is worse than a shemale porn link.


And yet, I imagine there would still be someone out there who wanted to watch it.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
October 28th, 2021 at 2:03:14 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: rxwine
Which is why it was easily disproved with a porn link.


The question was would YOU, rxwine, have sex with one.
The President is a fink.
October 28th, 2021 at 2:04:49 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: petroglyph

My rant wasn't directed toward you at all. Just making a statement. I have a relative that could really use the court ordered support for her kids. The father would rather not work and live off off anyone else that would house or feed him, than pay. I don't get it, but his belief system allows him certainty that it's not his duty to help support his kids, although they biologically are. In the two states he runs between working at oil field jobs [which pay pretty well] the states won't garnish his wages until he has been at a job for more than 45 days. He quits or gets fired at 44. Now over 100k behind in support. He will never pay it, and I would doubt he will ever accumulate much in his life, but watching how much it hurts those kids is really saddening. Good kids to.

I was loosely making a point that if sex education is going to be taught in schools, at least a few chapters should be devoted to the reality that most fathers at that age don't stick around, and don't help. So the majority of the raising of his kids falls on others. I'm not made like that.


I agree with the point that you were loosely making, which is why one of my policy positions that runs somewhat contrary to my usual line of thought is the notion that State Governments should be just as pleased as punch to pay for abortions. Much cheaper than just the public school costs alone.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
October 28th, 2021 at 2:05:42 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Mission146
And yet, I imagine there would still be someone out there who wanted to watch it.


In porn there always is. On "The Shield" they had a storyline about a porn producer making movies called "Dick 'n Granny" where he dressed up as Nixon and had sex with older women, "Granny." Like most things on TV I doubt they made it out of the blue but saw it somewhere.
The President is a fink.
October 28th, 2021 at 2:13:43 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: AZDuffman
Here is the problem for him. He defends trans women as like any other kind of woman. A few posters here did. So I asked if they would have sex with one. Some initial hemming and hawing but everyone manned up (except him) and said no, they would not.

Now, he knows if he says "yes, he would" that means he would have sex with a biological male. If he says "no" he loses street cred with liberals because he is not saying they are a woman. So he posted a porn link instead.

The 100 year old woman thing is a faulty comparison. That is someone beyond your age who you would find unattractive. We are talking say a 30 year old woman or a 30 year old guy transitioned to claim he was a woman. Similar build, race, looks, etc. If you say the trans is a woman then if you would have sex with the actual woman and not the trans woman then you are de facto saying no, they are not an actual woman, which of course they are not.

It is like liberals on most things. They talk a big game but never walk the talk. Same as all those liberals who say they "don't need a tax cut" but do not give the money back. That are against global warming but live in huge houses. Just that in taxes and global warming they do not post links to porn sites and claim it is an answer.


Let me frame my statement a different way. I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay or bi, so I don't care if having sex with a male-to-female transsexual makes an individual gay or bi...it's whatever they want to do with their own bodies.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being a transexual person...and I would say that they should be afforded the same treatment as others, except in the realm of athletics, where everything should be based on biological sex unless it is a biological woman choosing to compete with biological males.

Whether or not I would have sex with a transexual is irrelevant because it's not a fundamental right or a denial of equal treatment under the law to get to have sex with me.

If I choose to treat a transexual as their preferred gender in all aspects except whether or not I would sleep with them, then the very fact that they are a transexual is irrelevant, unless they want to sleep with me, of course. That said, I am currently in a monogamous relationship, so I would not have sex with anyone excepting my fiancee, who isn't a transexual anyway.

That's what makes it a weird question, in most instances. Whether or not I would have sex with a person is generally going to be in no way relevant to how I would treat that person.

Anyway, a male-to-female transexual is definitely, biologically, a man. I don't even think the majority of them would deny that, but I'm sure it's something that they would prefer not to discuss. I'm not saying that zero of them would deny it.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
October 28th, 2021 at 2:24:35 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Mission146
Let me frame my statement a different way. I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay or bi, so I don't care if having sex with a male-to-female transsexual makes an individual gay or bi...it's whatever they want to do with their own bodies.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being a transexual person...and I would say that they should be afforded the same treatment as others, except in the realm of athletics, where everything should be based on biological sex unless it is a biological woman choosing to compete with biological males.

Whether or not I would have sex with a transexual is irrelevant because it's not a fundamental right or a denial of equal treatment under the law to get to have sex with me.

If I choose to treat a transexual as their preferred gender in all aspects except whether or not I would sleep with them, then the very fact that they are a transexual is irrelevant, unless they want to sleep with me, of course. That said, I am currently in a monogamous relationship, so I would not have sex with anyone excepting my fiancee, who isn't a transexual anyway.

That's what makes it a weird question, in most instances. Whether or not I would have sex with a person is generally going to be in no way relevant to how I would treat that person.

Anyway, a male-to-female transexual is definitely, biologically, a man. I don't even think the majority of them would deny that, but I'm sure it's something that they would prefer not to discuss. I'm not saying that zero of them would deny it.



But here is the difference. You said they are biologically a male. I disagree with you and think the majority of them think they are a biological female. I was having lunch once and the young waitress was saying it was a "woman" then explained really a man but is a woman because he thinks he is one. I told her, "Then it is a man" and she really could not believe I was saying it. IOW, the younger generation really thinks they are women not men.

But Rx was defending them as "women." As were some others on here. So I called out anyone who claimed it with the obvious question. Question being would you have sex with one. If a guy really thinks they are a normal woman then only other things would rule them out (race, weight, etc) but that does not matter because it is an "other things being equal" question. If you say they are a normal woman but rule them out for sex because they are trans then you are saying they are not a normal woman. The rest is excuses not to answer.

FWIW I do not consider them a biological woman. They can have the rights you suggest above, but they are not getting that nod from me. Also FWIW I think any surgeon who cuts on one is violating their "Do no harm" oath and engaging in mutilation. But the thing is I am openly saying this, not claiming otherwise then evading why I would not be intimate with one.
The President is a fink.
October 28th, 2021 at 2:37:52 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18629
Quote: AZDuffman
The question was would YOU, rxwine, have sex with one.


Okay, time for you to man up. You pick a picture of a transgendered woman, and under it I will say, “I’d love to have sex with this woman” And I’ll pick a non-transgendered women for you, you prove she’s a woman by saying you’d love to have sex with her.

Since you have this stupid idea that’s how you prove or disprove a woman, you have to prove it.

We’ll make a thread for it.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
October 28th, 2021 at 2:41:03 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18629
And just for fun, neither of us will be allowed to ever explain why that thread exists, or why we did it.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?