Posted: 14 March 2006 10:34 PM
i disagree with most of this.
So stupidity is a defence?
"Some have said there is no subtlety to destruction. You know what? They’re dead.” -Jaya Ballard, task mage
Joe v. Wade
Posted: 14 March 2006 10:39 PM
ignorance? sure. and it is a defenSe
Love,
Matt
Standard: Ideal 31-7-8
Posted: 14 March 2006 10:46 PM
Ignorance or the law is not an excuse, otherwise the state could not excercise control over its citizens.
advocatus diaboli
Vexilla regis prodeunt inferni
Posted: 14 March 2006 10:50 PM
ignorance of the law isnt an excuse…
Love,
Matt
Standard: Ideal 31-7-8
Posted: 14 March 2006 10:56 PM
That is what I said!
Now go to your room!
advocatus diaboli
Vexilla regis prodeunt inferni
Posted: 14 March 2006 11:00 PM
Jawohl, der Fuhrer.
Love,
Matt
Standard: Ideal 31-7-8
Posted: 14 March 2006 11:05 PM
thats mein Fuhrer!
advocatus diaboli
Vexilla regis prodeunt inferni
Posted: 14 March 2006 11:07 PM
Ignorance is not knowing because you never learned.
Stupidity is not knowing because you choose not too.
A chick telling you she can’t get knocked up and you believing her because you want to go bareback is not ignorance. It’s stupidity. And even if it was ignorance, that too is not a defence unless you are mentally ill and even then it’s only cared for on extreme cases.
"Some have said there is no subtlety to destruction. You know what? They’re dead.” -Jaya Ballard, task mage
Posted: 15 March 2006 01:11 AM
apparently YOU have never had a drunk hookup
Love,
Matt
Standard: Ideal 31-7-8
Posted: 15 March 2006 09:58 AM
ahhh.
Now we are back to choices and the lack of accepting responsibility for the consequences.
Said figurative person chose to drink which knowingly lowers inhibitions and impair judgement and now doesn’t want the consequences of said action?
Posted: 15 March 2006 02:38 PM
who says there was only one person drinking?
what if a guy and a girl get trashed at a party, go upstairs, get it on, the loveglove breaks but they’re too drunk to care… they go home and forget about it. she realizes she’s pregnant a few weeks later and can only remember the guys first name. he’s going about his life and BAM phone call, he has to pay $800 a month for the next 18 years BUT he’s not allowed to see the kid except one weekend a month AND she’s not even sure if it’s his.
Love,
Matt
Standard: Ideal 31-7-8
Posted: 15 March 2006 03:36 PM
So what’s the issue you’re addressing Matt?
That they both got drunk and she got pregnant and now he has to pay child support for a child he fathered
or
The manufacturer’s love-glove broke and they didn’t notice and now she is pregnant
or
$800 / month is too high for child support
or
He has to pay $800 dollars / month for 18 years and only gets one weekend a month
or
She’s not sure if it’s his
Honestly asking so that I can address the issues at hand in a cogent manner.
Posted: 15 March 2006 05:25 PM
its not something that should be broken down. i just think a male should have more say in things.
“A woman should be able to choose whats right for her own body” does not mesh well when the child is both the mother’s and the father’s.
Love,
Matt
Standard: Ideal 31-7-8
Posted: 15 March 2006 07:27 PM
Nasoba, he didn’t just “knock a chick” up. This was his girlfriend, so they had a relationship. yeah, I thought he was stupid for believing that (and in the end he is) but he could’ve been easily (and I bet this is how it went down) very pressured that it was some medical condition. She has bad ovaries, whatever. Actually there are a LOT of couples that have reproductive problems, so really this isn’t very immprobable.
Plus, try applying “taking responsibility” to the woman. Can we all agree she wanted the baby? Most likely she wanted a baby, but he didn’t (he said that), but she consciously decided to LIE to him, decive him, and have a baby. Now, she’s demanding his support. I think she should take responsibility for her actions and raise the kid herself.
I hope it’s true that every snowflake is unique, because I never want to see one like this again.
Posted: 15 March 2006 07:49 PM
Nasoba, he didn’t just “knock a chick” up. This was his girlfriend, so they had a relationship. yeah, I thought he was stupid for believing that (and in the end he is) but he could’ve been easily (and I bet this is how it went down) very pressured that it was some medical condition. She has bad ovaries, whatever. Actually there are a LOT of couples that have reproductive problems, so really this isn’t very immprobable.
Plus, try applying “taking responsibility” to the woman. Can we all agree she wanted the baby? Most likely she wanted a baby, but he didn’t (he said that), but she consciously decided to LIE to him, decive him, and have a baby. Now, she’s demanding his support. I think she should take responsibility for her actions and raise the kid herself.
that’s what i was trying to say… but lately i’ve been to tired to form an actual argument like i was taught in college. meh. kudos Nathan.
Love,
Matt
Standard: Ideal 31-7-8