If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"'Kate" wrote in message
... I'd like to take this opportunity to wish each and every one of my fellow netizens a very happy troll season! And to you too 'Kate. Happy Trollfest. -- Paul Griffiths |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Byron Canfield" wrote in message news:RV4Wc.295335$a24.212837@attbi_s03...
"Lee" wrote in message m... "Byron Canfield" wrote in message news:GLzVc.199868$eM2.16412@attbi_s51 ... "Lee" wrote in message m ... "Zoe" wrote in message ... No one understands what being a single mother is until they experienced it. So? This method of refutation is dropped by most after their sophomore year of College. Valid, accurate criticisms can be levied by persons who have never been in the situation they are critiquing. I am a man, but I can validly criticize women who chose poorly and then have a child by their poorly chosen man. On the other hand, whether one has been in the situation or not, the data is not available from which to draw the conclusion that one group, in total, or the other, consists of "chumps" or "losers" as the originator of this thread asserted. Almost every woman who gets pregnant wants to get pregnant because they act in a manner that does not preclude pregnancy. Every time. See above. If I were a woman and I did not want to get pregnant - I would not have unprotected sex. I would be on the pill. I would have the Ru-486 in my medicine cabinet. I would know where to get an abortion. I would know where to give up a baby for adoption. There are 13 or 14 ways to not become a mother. And there you DO put yourself in the position of judging something for which you have not the frame of reference. In short - I disagree. Accurate assessments can be made by those who have dissimilar frames for reference. It happens millions of times a day, accurately, precisely and truthfully, all over the world. If your intent is that I must have the frame of reference in order to judge something, I disagree in the strongest possible fashion. My OP states that clearly. As one example, a person does not have to be a civil engineer to make the accurate judgment that 'Bouncing Gertie' over the Tacoma Narrows was an engineering failure. That is nothing like your claim that you would behave in a certain way "if you were" someone else. That sort of claim is pure(e) nonsense. To claim that I would behave in a certain way if I were a woman is not nonsense - some women *are* rational, and if I were presented with the situation I would behave as I posted. You exhibit Fascistic tendencies, in the modern usage of the word. i.e. A Fascist is someone who's pov is held above all others and their standards are the ultimate standards to use for a given situation - like your apparent insistence that I must have the frame of reference of someone I am validly critiquing. No, you're putting your own definition on Fascism. You should learn how to read and then look up the definition. No I am not. Here is a quote: "The term "fascist" or "Nazi" is often ascribed to individuals or groups who are perceived to behave in an authoritarian manner; by silencing opposition, judging personal behavior, or otherwise attempting to concentrate power." This is the current usage, however it does not reconcile with the traditional definition. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definition IOW you reserve the right to ignore criticism based upon dissimilar frames of reference. How convenient for you. Saying that you would do something IF YOU WERE SOMEBODY ELSE does not constitute criticism -- it is pure conjecture without any basis. You('re) just silly. It constitutes what a rational being would do. BTW your opinion will have no effect upon my judgments. I can judge all I want, and most of my judgments are very accurate and precise and truthful. As I would expect -- no one's would -- your mind is made up and reality must be adjusted to conform to your preconceived notions. My notions are based upon observed reality. I also like the way you ignored my last paragraph where I talked about single fathers. See the below paragraph. I'm also aware that there are single fathers out there who are doing the same job as single mothers and should be commended just as well. I'll also say this - courts more often than not side with the mother on custody issues and this is not always right either. 80% of custody is awarded to mommy. Your post is another example of people in denial or being plain stupid. You cite no facts to back up your 80% figure, These facts are common knowledge. But I will indulge your lack of initiative. That's false -- no such common knowledge. Your ignorance is not my responsibility. I can have all the members of AWS post; they know it. Andre knows it, Mark, too. And initiative is not the issue. When you make an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you. The point is that my claim is *not* extraordinary - it is only insofar as you believe it to be. To me it is a given bit of truth - a fact of life. Most of my male friends know that mom gets custody 80% of the time. Listeners to The Tom Leykis Show know it (approx cume 6 million per week). This aspect of debate IS common knowledge, though you are apparently clueless in that regard, or you choose to conveniently ignore it. That mothers get custody 80% of the time is widely known. http://www.menweb.org/throop/custody...s/whoGets.html And THAT is not a cite of the study -- that is a cite of somebody else's similar rantings where they purport to cite a study, but then provide no specific links to it. Just another flame. The only links provided in that piece are to other rantings by the same author. 77% mommy, 23% joint. I was incorrect - mommy gets custody 91.5% (88.5%) of the time. and then you insult the poster for her paragraph I posted this : "Your post..." I am referring to her post, not the aforementioned paragraph. That is your comprehension bias kicking in. Your just lying now -- go back and read your own post, idiot! The cite *is* from my post. http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/baddadmyth2.htm "Most divorced dads have more contact with their kids than was previously believed, he says. A 1983 study based at the University of Pennsylvania reported that only 49 percent of fathers had contact with their children within the preceding year. But Braver found that 90 percent had contact by either parent's account. Five out of six fathers living in the same town three years after the divorce reported weekly contact" I notice that you cannot cite a link to the original article, as allegedly published in the New York Times, but must post a link to a website that is obviously the product of bias. And you, the one who so carries on about "bias"... The NY Times is *not* biased!?! - puhleeze. Bravers 1999 study found that more than 50% see their children. So her statement is false, biased, sexist and stupid. http://www.acfc.us/reports/pdfs/DTWS...tdadcanard.pdf Again, YOUR bias is showing. The not so convenient byline at the bottom of that article on the website (notably missing from the PDF: " Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the male perspective. " You continue to stick your head in the sand. Pick up a book. Read the study you Luddite. Thus her refusal to acknowledge the truth is either 1) Denial or 2) stupidity. Truth only in your mind, therefore, denial of it is mandatory until you prove it. Here is a clue: not everything is posted on the net. Some of us read books. Delightful logic on your part: "I cannot read the original study on the web, ergo it does not exist." I stand by my post. She is either in denial or stupid. And that's NOT bias? You're an idiot. Your ignorance of the facts is not my concern. Additionally, insults are not false - they are impolite. I never claimed your insults were false -- just stupid. Is what I posted true? Nope. Read the study. You are ignorant if you continue to deny this basic fact of CS and FL. Is she ignorant or in denial WRT who is responsible for single motherhood and child custody? Nope. Why do women get pregnant? Because they want to. See above, regarding judging things for which you have no frame of reference. Another example: Is there any one over the age of 15 who lives in North America who does not know about AIDS? Q: Then why has anyone become infected since 1990? A: They behave stupidly. That contradicts your prior assertion that it is by conscious choice. It does not. Are you stupid? Read for comprehension. You said women get pregnant because they want to, and then you claim people act out of stupidity. Which is it -- intentional or negligence? Bzzt. Again you cannot see. Intentional is not synonymous with 'wanting to.' Negligence is not synonymous with stupidity. Read for comprehension. Someone who acts out of stupidity is not necessarily acting without volition. You can't seem to make up your mind (if you have one). You cannot seem to differentiate between the concepts posted herein. You appear to equate 'behaving stupidly' with a non-conscious choice. Oh contrairre -- Nonsense - you posted as such above. I was remarking you you equating behaving stupidly ignoring the potential consequences with behaving stupidly and wishing for the consequences. You can't have it both ways, idiot! Au contraire - many women often ignore one set of consequences whilst wishing for the remaining consequences. i.e. Women who get pregnant while doing drugs. Clue train: Many women are irrational, and will make decisions based upon poorly reasoned (by the loosest of definitions) arguments. Some people are not too bright, and *will* consciously and willfully chose stupid courses of action time and again, 'wanting to' each time. Not everyone has your scintillating intellect. Do you bother to read what you write before you hit the send button? Geez! You are condescending, and inaccurate. Again, you quite apparently just run off at the mouth and don't bother to review what you write. In this instance, you are projecting. Warm Regards, Lee. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Said book published 12 years ago is, due to the nature of paper publishing,
at least 15 years out of date, and no longer relevant to the issue of custody where the legal decisions are in constant flux. In the absense of anything more current, it would be accepted as relevant with reservation. Not dismissed. Again, you must read for comprehension not for URLs as you obviously were. Comprehension is irrelevant when nonsense is proffered. Again, you dismiss all evidenciary presents by your standards which flucuate to accomodate each post. I will leave it to you to label your behavior. Lee. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"Byron Canfield" wrote in message news:aGUWc.228655$eM2.121865@attbi_s51...
"hvatum" wrote in message om... http://www.menweb.org/throop/custody...s/whoGets.html And THAT is not a cite of the study -- that is a cite of somebody else's similar rantings where they purport to cite a study, but then provide no specific links to it. Just another flame. The only links provided in that piece are to other rantings by the same author. Yes, perhaps because said information can be found in books, not online for your convience. These "books" can be located at a library, or bought online. Here is a link to this "book" at amazon.com. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846 "From Dividing the Child: Social & Legal Dilemmas of Custody - Harvard Press, 1992 - Eleanor Maccoby (Psych Dept. Stanford) and Robert Mnookin (Stanford Law School) Based on their survey of nearly 1000 divorcing couples in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties:" Said book Ah, so you DIDN'T even notice that book before. published 12 years ago is, due to the nature of paper publishing, at least 15 years out of date, Unless you can find more recent statistics these are the best we have to go by. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FAQ July 2004 | Daniel | Single Parents | 0 | July 6th 04 02:25 AM |
Where's Bri ? | Nick | Single Parents | 3 | April 24th 04 12:27 PM |
FAQ try #2 | turtledove | Single Parents | 2 | January 4th 04 05:17 PM |
FAQ | turtledove | Single Parents | 0 | January 2nd 04 03:04 PM |
July's FAQ! | turtledove | Single Parents | 0 | July 1st 03 09:43 PM |