# Feminists win-Judge says man must pay $30K in child support for kid who is not his



## Deleted member 23 (Feb 18, 2015)

> It is a story that inspired outrage.
> 
> Carnell Alexander says he got a shock during a traffic stop in Detroit in the early 1990s. The officer told him he is a deadbeat dad, and that he was under arrest.
> 
> ...


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 18, 2015)

Wow
judicial system is too good


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 18, 2015)

15 million says the woman in question is black.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Feb 18, 2015)

Sometimes judges are idiots.

Dude should appeal.


----------



## Garfield (Feb 18, 2015)

Can some mod please repair that stupid title and remove the feminism reference from it?


----------



## Mael (Feb 18, 2015)

Dat patriarchy.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 18, 2015)

This Article made me check my male privileges


----------



## Vault (Feb 18, 2015)

Man fuck that shit

Nah Breh just no


----------



## Orochibuto (Feb 18, 2015)

adee said:


> Can some mod please repair that stupid title and remove the feminism reference from it?



Why ? Is correct.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 18, 2015)

Inb4 Flow CBW Starr and Normality


----------



## Stunna (Feb 18, 2015)

**


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 18, 2015)

That judge shouldn't have their job...


----------



## Gunners (Feb 18, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Sometimes judges are idiots.
> 
> Dude should appeal.


The problem is that it is too difficult to get removed. Most people are idiotic, but when they know their stupidity can cost them their career, they tend to show a bit more caution. 

If she believed she could get fired for an awful decision, she wouldn't have approached this case so brazenly.

That being said, the sort of case that makes me think OJ. My throat gets so dry with disbelief, I need to clear it with a nice cool drink of Orange Juice.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 18, 2015)

Man Orange Juice sounds good right now. 

You've got to share


----------



## Sherlōck (Feb 18, 2015)

This is just fucking awesome.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 18, 2015)

In cases like this one I wish there was a national authority for slapping the bullshit out of the people involved


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 18, 2015)

Zaru said:


> In cases like this one I wish there was a national authority for slapping the bullshit out of the people involved



You watched Love Lab...Or?


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

adee said:


> Can some mod please repair that stupid title and remove the feminism reference from it?



Why are you afraid of facts?


----------



## Capt. Autismo (Feb 18, 2015)

That is just ridiculous. You can't even justify the act of trying to make a man pay 30,000 for a child that isn't even his.


----------



## Juda (Feb 18, 2015)

BUT why does he have to pay for something that isnt his? wdf?. This news puts me on edge like how? why???


----------



## Garfield (Feb 18, 2015)

krory said:


> Why are you afraid of facts?


You're right, I'm sorry feminism was the root cause of all "stupid" fine print in penal codes.

Even though this fine print isn't stupid it's just non-all-inclusive because no law ever can.

Fuck this gay thread.


----------



## ExoSkel (Feb 18, 2015)

adee said:


> You're right, I'm sorry feminism was the root cause of all "stupid" fine print in penal codes.
> 
> Even though this fine print isn't stupid it's just non-all-inclusive because no law ever can.
> 
> Fuck this gay thread.


Modern feminists are vindictive as fuck.


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

>Mother wants money
>Female judge
>Insist the issue is with men
>Blames male lawmakers
>Blames the non-father for not declaring he didn't do it
>Even though he did numerous times
>Woman refuses man the right to a DNA test
>Guilty until proven innocent because he's "a deadbeat dad"
>Blames male news reporter for "misconstruing my justice!!!!"

I'm suuuuure this isn't just an angry woman.


----------



## Punished Pathos (Feb 18, 2015)

lol can't take care of no chick with a kid that isn't biologically yours, you'll get pinned with child support


----------



## Garfield (Feb 18, 2015)

krory said:


> >Mother wants money
> >Female judge
> >Insist the issue is with men
> >Blames male lawmakers
> ...


Man I wish engineers used your methods of establishing facts. We could already have flying unicorns spitting Gold by now


----------



## santanico (Feb 18, 2015)

> Judge McCarthy described how he had been to court more than a dozen times over the years. She ruled that Carnell Alexander should have filed a motion to set aside the acknowledgement of parentage long ago.



he should have taken care of it, now the system has screwed him



adee said:


> Man I wish engineers used your methods of establishing facts. We could already have flying unicorns spitting Gold by now



seriously


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Feb 18, 2015)

adee said:


> You're right, I'm sorry feminism was the root cause of all "stupid" fine print in penal codes.
> 
> Even though this fine print isn't stupid it's just non-all-inclusive because no law ever can.
> 
> Fuck this gay thread.





adee said:


> Man I wish engineers used your methods of establishing facts. We could already have flying unicorns spitting Gold by now



Male Shaming tactic 101.

If all else false, call the opponent a child and make fun of his arguments without making any of your own.

@star, the system that feminists created. Would you like your sons to grow up in a world like this? Where being an average person will get them fucked over?


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 18, 2015)

Blue Pillers will deny the truth, But this is the future of 80% of the males in society


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

Zyrax said:


> Blue Pillers will deny the truth, But this is the future of 80% of the males in society



Dude, this is the *present* of 80% of the males in society.


----------



## blueblip (Feb 18, 2015)

krory said:


> >Mother wants money
> >Female judge
> >Insist the issue is with men
> >Blames male lawmakers
> ...


I'm confused.

The laws the bitch judge is using were written decades ago. WTF does feminism have to do with the ruling??

The judge is an idiot, no doubt. The man should appeal the hell out of this ruling, no doubt. There are so many things wrong with this case it's mind boggling, no doubt.

But to ascribe the problems solely to feminism? You're reaching so far you've managed to reach all the way down to hell and right into Satan's asshole! I mean, where the fuck is there even a single feminist in this entire fiasco??


----------



## Garfield (Feb 18, 2015)

klad said:


> Male Shaming tactic 101.
> 
> If all else false, call the opponent a child and make fun of his arguments without making any of your own.
> 
> @star, the system that feminists created. Would you like your sons to grow up in a world like this? Where being an average person will get them fucked over?


I'm calling every white man a racist, because you know facts. Onus is now on you to disprove it because you know that is how proofing works.


----------



## santanico (Feb 18, 2015)

klad said:


> @star, the system that feminists created. Would you like your sons to grow up in a world like this? Where being an average person will get them fucked over?



hell no, but we're teaching my boys to stand up for what's right AND themselves. I'm a feminist, not feminazi, I don't hate men 



Zyrax said:


> Inb4 Flow CBW Starr and Normality



yo


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Feb 18, 2015)

blueblip said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> The laws the bitch judge is using were written decades ago. WTF does feminism have to do with the ruling??
> 
> ...



Fedora wearing 4chan green texting never had any contact with women besides mum don't need a reason to blame their ills on women.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Feb 18, 2015)

adee said:


> I'm calling every white man a racist, because you know facts. Onus is now on you to disprove it because you know that is how proofing works.


Ha no, one of my best friends in HS was white and I know some pretty awesome white guys. I'm black, so you've already lost the basis of your argument.
Who's Onus?


starr said:


> hell no, but we're teaching my boys to stand up for what's right AND themselves. I'm a feminist, not feminazi, I don't hate men
> yo


Of course not, and teaching them what's right and standing up for yourselves won't help you in court.

I understand this, you can be a feminist and not a feminazi but have you ever considered to look at the male of things? You have two sons, so it would be best the fight for rights that would help men out as well as women, no?

Have you ever seen the  or read the war against boys?


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

blueblip said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> The laws the bitch judge is using were written decades ago. WTF does feminism have to do with the ruling??
> 
> ...



Did you even read the article? Either not or you're an idiot because, "Hey, he's a man, so he deserves it" is now reasonable in the US. Everything that happened through the course of the case she explicitly and expressly blamed on men - never admitted that she messed up by employing a law that hasn't even been employed in decades because of her own biases, never admitting that she denied a man his constitutional rights, and completely ignored her bigoted spewing against reporters for "misrepresenting her" by using _her own words_. Nor is this the first time that judge has been in the news regarding shifting laws and finding loopholes to suit her own agenda, like in the case of Harmon v. Davis.


----------



## Wilykat (Feb 18, 2015)

Michigan law is really stupid. Not giving men much chance to dispute any claim over child. The court claim to have served the "father" the paper but he was in jail at the time and thus paper was never served as claimed.  By the time he gets a chance to fight it, he is forever branded the father despite proof he is not the father.

He should sue the bitch for lying about him being the father and causing grief and other mental issues and to sue the court system for lying and failing to deliver the necessary paperwork when he was still in jail.

I think I know where the bitch judge lives.  She's about an hour away. Maybe one night I'll drive by and drop a sign that reads "KKK Picnic" on her property. Get a $5 valve stem core remover and deflate all tires on her car.


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

>Father
>Rights
>US


----------



## santanico (Feb 18, 2015)

klad said:


> Of course not, and teaching them what's right and standing up for yourselves won't help you in court.


what's your point?


> I understand this, you can be a feminist and not a feminazi but have you ever considered to look at the male of things? You have two sons, so it would be best the fight for rights that would help men out as well as women, no?



I don't think you'll care for my answer regarding this. So lets end it here.



> Have you ever seen the  or read the war against boys?



no, and I don't plan too, thanks though


----------



## Mael (Feb 18, 2015)

Shame.  Sommers has much to inform women on.


----------



## Suit (Feb 18, 2015)

adee said:


> Can some mod please repair that stupid title and remove the feminism reference from it?





adee said:


> You're right, I'm sorry feminism was the root cause of all "stupid" fine print in penal codes.
> 
> Even though this fine print isn't stupid it's just non-all-inclusive because no law ever can.
> 
> Fuck this gay thread.



Sorry adee, but this has feminism written all over it. And there's really no denying that it's the driving cause of bullshit that men have to deal with.

Also, if this isn't further motivation to stay the fuck away from women, I don't know what else is. I'd have big plans for the fucking cunt that did this bullshit.


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

Mael said:


> Shame.  Sommers has much to inform women on.



If only they'd actually listen instead of burning her book and claim to be sexually assaulted by different opinions.  Even white knight like CTK suffice to call woman who don't fall under the umbrella agenda "cunts" and make rape threats. But that's okay! She was just being a woman wrong!


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Feb 18, 2015)

starr said:


> what's your point?
> 
> 
> I don't think you'll care for my answer regarding this. So lets end it here.
> ...



My point was that even though you're a feminist, you should strive for a world that is equal to both men and women, some stuff like this shouldn't happen. Could you imagine if this happened to a male family member in your life?

I honestly want to know your answer, that's why I asked.

You should, if you want to help you sons grow it would be informal. You respondent positively to fathers in the lives of boys. I'm not trying to redpill you but enlighten you to the male side of things.


Mael said:


> Shame.  Sommers has much to inform women on.


If only they didn't have book burning dedicated towards her, they might actually learn something


----------



## reiatsuflow (Feb 18, 2015)

Poor guy. Depending on the lifestyle, it's not always easy to keep, much less follow up on, paper trails. The system knows this, but there's only so much leniency. I was once surprised on a train ride by a routine DEA drug check. They had my address listed in some small desert town where I've never lived, and it's evidently a pretty big drug place. The government, for some reason, thought I lived in a state and a city I had never lived. I didn't get a ticket there, I didn't live there for a time. Nothing. I had no idea up to that point because my lifestyle wasn't stable enough to raise the red flags, and once raised, wasn't stable enough for me to really have the documentation needed to fix it. Depending on how bad you've got it, you sort of wander around without the means to address issues until the issues get so bad that you are forced to address it. Not because you're avoiding the issue, but because you literally don't have the means to address it.

This guy was in prison with an eighth grade education. Did he even have much of a residency when he got out? How exactly are you expecting this guy to address the misunderstanding, depending on his means?


----------



## baconbits (Feb 18, 2015)

This is one of the more weird thread discussions I've seen.  I'm not sure how people are disagreeing with adee but I think his point is still valid.  Clearly the ruling is wrong and modern feminists would support this ruling; in that sense the feminists did win.  On the other hand its hard to pin this entire thing on feminists, even if we acknowledge this is what they'd like to do.  After all its hard to believe feminists have written the law in Michigan.  I could be persuaded to change my opinion if someone provided a link proving otherwise, tho.


----------



## Suit (Feb 18, 2015)

The point is that modern feminists are the main ones that would support such a ruling. They don't deserve to have their little "movement" dissociated with such an atrocity. Unless one wishes to paint them in a deceivingly positive light, that is.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 18, 2015)




----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

And yet if the roles were reversed in this scenario, people would rush to blame 'ZE PATRIARCHY! trying to keep women down with sexual oppression.


----------



## Suit (Feb 18, 2015)

Fucking feminists need to just burn, man. This isn't even funny anymore.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 18, 2015)

The opposite never happens, the only time a man gets custody of the children is when the woman is found sorely incapable, they likely aren't going to be holding a high paying job or even a paying job.


----------



## Suit (Feb 18, 2015)

Xiammes said:


> The opposite never happens, the only time a man gets custody of the children is when the woman is found sorely incapable, they likely aren't going to be holding a high paying job or even a paying job.



Can confirm. Had a male family member who once struggled in court to gain custody despite the fact that the mother had drinking issues, temper issues, and generally didn't have her life together.

And he _still fucking struggled to get custody_. Despite having _all_ of his shit together.

Yeah, go feminism.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 18, 2015)

Mother-beneficial custody bullshit predates feminism. Hell, it kinda predates suffragettes. Not by much, but still.


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

And you have to try _reeeaaaally_ fucking hard to be deemed "incapable" as a woman.

Could be a drug-addled psychopath and the father have a well-paying job where he works from home at his own pace, so can be there for the child, but wait... what's this? He got a speeding ticket that he never paid when he was nineteen?! Well CLEARLY he's dangerous!


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 18, 2015)

StrawHat said:


> The point is that modern feminists are the main ones that would support such a ruling. They don't deserve to have their little "movement" dissociated with such an atrocity. Unless one wishes to paint them in a deceivingly positive light, that is.



Ever heard of the Burden of Proof?

'Modern feminists'.

Increasingly in the Caf? anti-fems are not discussing feminism per see, but rather different theories of it that go beyond its definition.


----------



## Suit (Feb 18, 2015)

Zaru said:


> Mother-beneficial custody bullshit predates feminism. Hell, it kinda predates suffragettes. Not by much, but still.



While that's true, it serves to debunk the "equality" beliefs of feminism to point out that they never tackle such instances where males are being treated unequally.

And before anyone completely misses the point and tries to say that they do, just save your post for someone who actually gives a fuck.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 18, 2015)

StrawHat said:


> While that's true, it serves to debunk the "equality" beliefs of feminism to point out that they never tackle such instances where males are being treated unequally.
> 
> And before anyone completely misses the point and tries to say that they do, just save your post for someone who actually gives a fuck.



Has anyone coined #NotAllFeminists yet


----------



## Suit (Feb 18, 2015)

Zaru said:


> Has anyone coined #NotAllFeminists yet



As if anyone would


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

Zaru said:


> Has anyone coined #NotAllFeminists yet



It was a big, humorous blow-up after #NotAllMen on Twitter. Ultimately led to men being "put in their place where they belong."


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

MbS said:


> Ever heard of the Burden of Proof?
> 
> 'Modern feminists'.
> 
> Increasingly in the Caf? anti-fems are not discussing feminism per see, but rather different theories of it that go beyond its definition.



That awkward moment when even _actual_ feminists disagree with you. Get a clue, dude.


----------



## Mael (Feb 18, 2015)

MbS said:


> Ever heard of the Burden of Proof?
> 
> 'Modern feminists'.
> 
> Increasingly in the Caf? anti-fems are not discussing feminism per see, but rather different theories of it that go beyond its definition.



Clearly you're a fucking loon and that's not even talking about your blind loyalty to feminism.  And actually this is the sort of stuff feminism does support nowadays, anything to neuter men but yes I get it you hate men despite being one.

We've gone over the burden of proof.  The problem is in modern litigation it's incredibly difficult to prove a deadbeat woman is less competent to raise kids than an honest man.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 18, 2015)

Mael said:


> Clearly you're a fucking loon and that's not even talking about your blind loyalty to feminism.  And actually this is the sort of stuff feminism does support nowadays, anything to neuter men but yes I get it you hate men despite being one.
> 
> *We've gone over the burden of proof.  *The problem is in modern litigation it's incredibly difficult to prove a deadbeat woman is less competent to raise kids than an honest man.



Have you balls.

Just the typical confirmation bias you can expect to find in these threads.


----------



## Mael (Feb 18, 2015)

MbS said:


> Have you balls.
> 
> Just the typical confirmation bias you can expect to find in these threads.



I do have balls...and so did you before you decided to mutilate them off.


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

FUN FACT: Concepts such as women are incapable of being sexist (sexism requires "privilege" and no woman is privileged in the US), the idea that homosexuals and transexuals are the most harmful things to the feminist movement, and that women have _no_ rights under the law today *are still taught in colleges around the U.S.* The ideas of "manspreading" and "manslamming" were actually taught, were put forth as an "epidemic" and "sexual assault" against women and feminism, a cause that governments actually spent money on.

And now you have places like the UK passing laws where in rape cases, the burden of proof is now on the _accused_, not the _accuser_. 

Yet, nope... this is aaaaaall imaginary. Not happening at all, just because MbS says so.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 18, 2015)

The funny thing is, the dynamics change once the child reaches 16. At that age, they tend to stick with the person who is actually a parent to them. I knew so many people who had their last names changed, when their mum got married, and now I see that they've gone back to their original last names.


----------



## Suit (Feb 18, 2015)

Most truthful sig ever, tbh


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

Just because you side with the TERFs doesn't mean they're going to magically start accepting you.


----------



## Suit (Feb 18, 2015)

krory said:


> Just because you side with the TERFs doesn't mean they're going to magically start accepting you.



TERFs? **


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

StrawHat said:


> TERFs? **



Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Since, as I mentioned earlier, a very popular feeling being passed around to young third-wavers by their elders is that transgenders are "gender assassins," designed to throw the feminist movement off its balance and take them off course.

Unfortunately, I've seen the effects of this teaching as they hit a friend of mine - a poster from this forum formerly, actually - as she went on to major in "Social Justice" (yes, this is an actual major in some places). After having not seen her for two years, I logged on to Twitter one day to see her proclaiming a feminist march they were doing in her homestate, but threatened transgenders (and men) with "legal action" if they attempted participate.


----------



## Suit (Feb 18, 2015)

krory said:


> Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Since, as I mentioned earlier, a very popular feeling being passed around to young third-wavers by their elders is that transgenders are "gender assassins," designed to throw the feminist movement off its balance and take them off course.
> 
> Unfortunately, I've seen the effects of this teaching as they hit a friend of mine - a poster from this forum formerly, actually - as she went on to major in "Social Justice" (yes, this is an actual major in some places). After having not seen her for two years, I logged on to Twitter one day to see her proclaiming a feminist march they were doing in her homestate, but threatened transgenders (and men) with "legal action" if they attempted participate.



Oh boy. Too much stuff that I don't care about


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

But, again, this is all just imaginary in our heads, so that didn't actually happen. Thanks for clearing that up, MbS.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 18, 2015)

Wait wait wait wait...

So you mean to tell me MbS decided to trade in his testicles for fake chesticles to feel superior, _not_ because he honest-to-god felt and thought like he'd be a happier person if he were a woman?

Goodness. _I never knew that before *just right now*_. 

Did anyone else _not know this before *just right now*?_


----------



## Mael (Feb 18, 2015)

Holy mother of God I could only imagine who this one...hope to God not Juno.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 18, 2015)

krory said:


> FUN FACT: Concepts such as women are incapable of being sexist (sexism requires "privilege" and no woman is privileged in the US), the idea that homosexuals and transexuals are the most harmful things to the feminist movement, and that women have _no_ rights under the law today *are still taught in colleges around the U.S.* The ideas of "manspreading" and "manslamming" were actually taught, were put forth as an "epidemic" and "sexual assault" against women and feminism, a cause that governments actually spent money on.



Where is any of that relevant with the article?



> And now you have places like the UK passing laws where in rape cases, the burden of proof is now on the _accused_, not the _accuser_.



That's reasonable enough: if you haven't had sex then the burden of proof is on the female to prove that you had.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 18, 2015)

baconbits said:


> This is one of the more weird thread discussions I've seen.  I'm not sure how people are disagreeing with adee but I think his point is still valid.  Clearly the ruling is wrong and modern feminists would support this ruling; in that sense the feminists did win.  On the other hand its hard to pin this entire thing on feminists, even if we acknowledge this is what they'd like to do.  After all its hard to believe feminists have written the law in Michigan.  I could be persuaded to change my opinion if someone provided a link proving otherwise, tho.


Say x is wounded independent of Y. Y is not responsible for the initial injury, but if Y stands in the way of X receiving treatment they would share culpability with regards to his wounds festering. 

Where the laws are concerned, it is clear that many of them are archaic and need to be _treated_. The problem is that no sane politician would move towards making these changes a possibility; it would invoke the wrath of people adept at wilfully misinterpreting a person's words so that they can manipulate the less informed. 

They stand in in the way of the law developing, which makes them partially responsible.


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

MbS said:


> Where is any of that relevant with the article?



Nothing you've said is relevant with the article, so why are you backtracking now, dude?




> That's reasonable enough: if you haven't had sex then the burden of proof is on the female to prove that you had.



Except that's not what the law dictates.

Woman accuses you, you have to prove it didn't happen.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 18, 2015)

Did MbS _really_ just synonymize sex with rape?


----------



## Suit (Feb 18, 2015)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Did MbS _really_ just synonymize sex with rape?



Feminists tend to do that, to be entirely honest.


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Wait wait wait wait...
> 
> So you mean to tell me MbS decided to trade in his testicles for fake chesticles to feel superior, _not_ because he honest-to-god felt and thought like he'd be a happier person if he were a woman?
> 
> ...



I can top that.

Chloe Sagal said she was in a car accident that left her crippled and did tremendous damage to her, leaving her in a life-threatening condition. So she started a crowdfunding fundraiser through IndieGoGo trying to raise money for the costs of surgery to make her walk again. She said there was another optional surgery that would "make her life easier," but not life-threatening like her current condition.

She almost raised the money... until IndieGoGo found out the truth. She was actually raising the money to get gender reassignment surgery to become a full-fledged woman. The entire car accident scenario was fabricated, so once IGG found proof of this, they closed her funding.

To this day, Chloe still insists she's dying from the car accident and regularly threatens to kill herself, putting the blame on IndieGoGo and other people that outed her scheme (she also has some very brain-dead followers who have threatened employees of the company for their "sexism" and "misogyny" against Chloe for closing her project).


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 18, 2015)

StrawHat said:


> Feminists tend to do that, to be entirely honest.



.../sigh

I know, I just keep getting flabbergasted whenever it happens though.

Why? 

edit: 

btw, guys.

Let's be _politically correct_ this one time and try to consistently use the proper term for this group: Feminazis.


----------



## Suit (Feb 18, 2015)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> .../sigh
> 
> I know, I just keep getting flabbergasted whenever it happens though.
> 
> Why?



Sad facts of life just never digest completey, unfortunately


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 18, 2015)

"The day when all bovine are cows..."

...

Someone finish this.


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

Let's be fair, feminazis are so prominent that long-standing feminists like Christina Sommers don't even want to be associated with the term "feminist" anymore because of what those crazy bitches have done to it.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 18, 2015)

krory said:


> Nothing you've said is relevant with the article, so why are you backtracking now, dude?



_We-ll~_ yeah, keeping in prospective I was challenging some chump's definition of 'modern feminism'.

Feminism itself has nothing to do with the article.



> Except that's not what the law dictates.
> 
> Woman accuses you, you have to prove it didn't happen.



That's not how it works.

'Accuse' is not sufficiently strong enough to bring charges.



Yami Munesanzun said:


> Wait wait wait wait...
> 
> So you mean to tell me MbS decided to trade in his testicles for fake chesticles to feel superior, _not_ because he honest-to-god felt and thought like he'd be a happier person if he were a woman?



Throw yourself off the nearest cliff. _Please._


----------



## Mael (Feb 18, 2015)

No if anything you need to Mads.  Jello isn't around to safeguard your bullshit especially in the face of litigious bullshit.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 18, 2015)

Oh dear me, did I hit a sore spot?


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 18, 2015)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> Oh dear me, did I hit a sore spot?



Shut up and make me a sandwich.


----------



## Mael (Feb 18, 2015)

You say you're a woman now, Mads.  It's your job to do so now.


----------



## Suit (Feb 18, 2015)

Mael said:


> You say you're a woman now, Mads.  It's your job to do so now.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 18, 2015)

MbS said:


> Shut up and make me a sandwich.



I don't make sandwiches for people who are so insecure about themselves that they need to go through something as drastic as a sex change in order to feel superior to others.

Hell, I don't make sandwiches for people who _need_ to feel superior to others. 



@SH:

I just noticed her left eye's wonking out


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 18, 2015)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> I don't make sandwiches for people who are so insecure about themselves that they need to go through something as drastic as a sex change in order to feel superior to others.



How... did you come to that conclusion. 

_Oh my sides. Tehehe._

Transsexualism is nothing about feeling superior.

What are you? A retard or something?


----------



## Krory (Feb 18, 2015)

This dude is so oversensitive.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 18, 2015)

The act itself? Surely not, and that's not what I said or implied.

Your reason for going through with it? It's heavily implied, both by myself and your recent..."activity".

Nice grasp of comprehension you've got, though.

Must've lost that along with your balls.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 18, 2015)

I _so_ am sensitive.

Maybe I should spam more memes like all the cool people?



Yami Munesanzun said:


> The act itself? Surely not, and that's not what I said or implied.
> 
> Your reason for going through with it? It's heavily implied, both by myself and your recent..."activity".
> 
> ...



Hmmm, how to make a cave dweller understand. 

It was painfully obvious I was being rhetorical.

lel Dork.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Feb 18, 2015)

The US hasn't really 'lost' any of the current Wars. It withdrew from Iraq when the combat duty was over after we kicked Saddam's Ass. It withdrew from Afghanistan after the combat role was over.

Does the author of the article even know what losing a War even is?


----------



## Mael (Feb 18, 2015)

Wrong thread.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Feb 18, 2015)

...stupid posting, I clicked for the other thread when it was featured...and then it went here.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 18, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> ...stupid posting, I clicked for the other thread when it was featured...and then it went here.



Yes, a magician did it.


----------



## HolyHands (Feb 18, 2015)

This case is horrible and all, but I'm confused by the title that pins the blame on feminism. Did feminists even write that law? Do feminist communities support what happened to this man? Is the judge even a feminist? This seems more like a case of screwed-by-fine-print and poor judgement on the judge rather than some oppression from a movement.


----------



## Gino (Feb 18, 2015)




----------



## Punished Pathos (Feb 18, 2015)

MbS said:


> Yes, a magician did it.


----------



## Gino (Feb 18, 2015)

Honestly I would shoot this bitch in the face and not think twice about it theres certain lines you just don't cross like royalty fucking up anothers person life just cause.


----------



## iJutsu (Feb 18, 2015)

What kind of dude would make a law where someone who isn't even related to that person can be called the father? No dude would do that. Even a gay person wouldn't because they're still technically dudes.


----------



## Xiammes (Feb 18, 2015)

MbS said:


> Yes, a magician did it.


----------



## Hachibi (Feb 18, 2015)

...
Sometimes I wish to be gay just so I don't get myself in such cases
Fucking Feminazi and their bullshit. At this rate, either US or UK will fall form it and we will have a femiHitler (well, close enough but still).


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 19, 2015)

Hachibi said:


> ...
> Sometimes I wish to be gay just so I don't get myself in such cases
> Fucking Feminazi and their bullshit. At this rate, either US or UK will fall form it and we will have a femiHitler (well, close enough but still).


Join the MGTOW :ignoramus


----------



## WolfPrinceKiba (Feb 19, 2015)

Feminists liken women's treatment throughout history to blacks/slavery yet here we have an actual example of a current day first world legal system enforcing what is almost tantamount to being a slave(as close as one can get in the US) by being forced to pay for a child that isn't his. Alimony isn't much better. I would laugh at the irony of it all if it wasn't so damn depressing.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 19, 2015)

WolfPrinceKiba said:


> Feminists liken women's treatment throughout history to blacks/slavery yet here we have an actual example of a current day first world legal system enforcing what is almost tantamount to being a slave(as close as one can get in the US) by being forced to pay for a child that isn't his. Alimony isn't much better. I would laugh at the irony of it all if it wasn't so damn depressing.


They do realize that the only reason that women stayed at home was because 1000+ years ago almost every job needed muscles? Which is why the only job a woman could get into where minor things that don't need muscles or Non High ranking Politician. Other than that any other job would have killed the woman.


----------



## Gino (Feb 19, 2015)

Zyrax said:


> Join the MGTOW :ignoramus



MGTOW ain't bout shit either.


----------



## Roman (Feb 19, 2015)

MbS said:


> Ever heard of the Burden of Proof?



Please clarify. Who was supposed to provide evidence of the man being the father here? In any other case, burden of proof would, or at least should, fall onto the one making any given claim. Example: if I made the claim "the earth is flat" then it would be my responsibility to prove that it is, rather than it being your responsibility to prove it isn't.

For all intents and purposes, the one who made the claim is the mother who wrote his name on documents needed to get benefits. The man never had any contact with the "child" in the first place.

And even if you were to argue that the man was meant to provide evidence, he DID come up with the evidence but it was refuted. So why are you even talking about burden of proof when evidence was provided by the party that, by what you're implying, should have provided it?


----------



## stream (Feb 19, 2015)

Juda said:


> BUT why does he have to pay for something that isnt his? wdf?. This news puts me on edge like how? why???



It's the process of the law which is too high a burden.

Step 1: Some random woman claims he is the father. This actually makes him the legal father _unless_ he goes through a specific procedure to declare that he is not.

Step 2: He does not know the proper procedure, does not have money for a lawyer to explain to him what to do, and is generally unaware of what he should do. He tries instead to prove he is not the father, but he cannot do a DNA test since he is not able to find the mother and the child. Failing that, it's awfully hard to prove anything.

Step 3: It's now way too late to go through what would have been the proper procedure. He's fucked.

The law's an ass, but that ain't the fault of the judge or feminists.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 19, 2015)

Freedan, don't talk to MbS, he's a confused gremlin.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 19, 2015)

This has the potential to be humorous, maybe.



Freedan said:


> Please clarify. Who was supposed to provide evidence of the man being the father here? In any other case, burden of proof would, or at least should, fall onto the one making any given claim. Example: if I made the claim "the earth is flat" then it would be my responsibility to prove that it is, rather than it being your responsibility to prove it isn't.
> 
> For all intents and purposes, the one who made the claim is the mother who wrote his name on documents needed to get benefits. The man never had any contact with the "child" in the first place.
> 
> And even if you were to argue that the man was meant to provide evidence, he DID come up with the evidence but it was refuted. So why are you even talking about burden of proof when evidence was provided by the party that, by what you're implying, should have provided it?



Sigh... Freedan. I wasn't challenging that.

I was challenging the generalisation spouted by some ape about 'modern feminists' despite the fact there is no mention of feminism whatsoever in the thread.

This sort of thing is becoming more commonplace in the Cafe and frequently encouraged by the anti-fems who appear to think that the burden is on other people to refute their points instead of providing evidence themselves. Repeat something enough times and watch as the sheep fall into line.



MbS said:


> StrawHat said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that modern feminists are the main ones that would support such a ruling. They don't deserve to have their little "movement" dissociated with such an atrocity. Unless one wishes to paint them in a deceivingly positive light, that is.
> ...



Funny enough: I _still_ haven't received any evidence. Hey, I guess you don't need any if enough apes are promulgating something. I mean, it _must_ be true afterall. It's _so_ obvious after all: a feminist conspiracy against men.


----------



## Hachibi (Feb 19, 2015)

stream said:


> It's the process of the law which is too high a burden.
> 
> Step 1: Some random woman claims he is the father. This actually makes him the legal father _unless_ he goes through a specific procedure to declare that he is not.
> 
> ...



That's one big flaw if I see one.


----------



## Roman (Feb 19, 2015)

MbS said:


> Sigh... Freedan. I wasn't challenging that.
> 
> I was challenging the generalisation spouted by some ape about 'modern feminists' despite the fact there is no mention of feminism whatsoever in the thread.
> 
> ...



He's not wrong tho. Extremist feminists would support the ruling. He's not even saying they're behind this specific man's problems or the root cause of it. Gunners also makes a good point here:



Gunners said:


> Say x is wounded independent of Y. Y is not responsible for the initial injury, but if Y stands in the way of X receiving treatment they would share culpability with regards to his wounds festering.
> 
> Where the laws are concerned, it is clear that many of them are archaic and need to be _treated_. The problem is that no sane politician would move towards making these changes a possibility; it would invoke the wrath of people adept at wilfully misinterpreting a person's words so that they can manipulate the less informed.
> 
> They stand in in the way of the law developing, which makes them partially responsible.



Because such people as extremist feminists exist, laws changing in such a way that might be perceived as stripping women of their rights, such as having to prove who their child's father is, or having to prove an act of sex was not consensual, will be met with a lot of criticism by such people. I agree that this doesn't make them wholly responsible for this case, or even directly responsible, but among factors influencing this ruling, modern feminism can be included.


----------



## WolfPrinceKiba (Feb 19, 2015)

Once a man proves through a paternity test that he isn't the father, that should be the end all be all in this situation, no matter what retarded paperwork he did or didn't do. This is one of the problems of being inflexible when making rulings.


----------



## GrimaH (Feb 19, 2015)

The anti-feminism hysteria is reaching "muh Commies" proportions here, and is about as deserving of any intelligent reply.

Judge decided to fuck him over for not following stupid admin procedures, not for being a male.


----------



## stream (Feb 19, 2015)

WolfPrinceKiba said:


> Once a man proves through a paternity test that he isn't the father, that should be the end all be all in this situation, no matter what retarded paperwork he did or didn't do. This is one of the problems of being inflexible when making rulings.



There are plenty of limits for acting on something. Like if you receive a fine for speeding, they tell you you have X days for contesting it. After that period is gone, you probably have to pay it even if you can prove you weren't in the country at the time of the supposed infraction.

Being ignorant of the law is unfortunately no defense in front of a judge. This particularly sucks when lawyers cost an arm and a leg.

It's not clear to me how much latitude a US judge has to overrule law in particular circumstances? Anybody here knows about it?


----------



## Krory (Feb 19, 2015)

GrimaH said:


> The anti-feminism hysteria is reaching "muh Commies" proportions here, and is about as deserving of any intelligent reply.
> 
> Judge decided to fuck him over for not following stupid admin procedures, not for being a male.



Keep telling yourself that. It might eventually make it true!


----------



## GrimaH (Feb 19, 2015)

I wanted a namechange and all I got is this stupid fucking username said:


> Keep telling yourself that. It might eventually make it true!



I don't have the energy to make a sarcastic reply. Just read the fucking article and educate yourself.


----------



## David (Feb 19, 2015)

Title should be changed.


----------



## Suit (Feb 19, 2015)

MbS said:


> Funny enough: I _still_ haven't received any evidence. Hey, I guess you don't need any if enough apes are promulgating something. I mean, it _must_ be true afterall. It's _so_ obvious after all: a feminist conspiracy against men.



Stop being cryptic and be clear about what you're saying, and maybe I'll give you a response.


----------



## Gino (Feb 19, 2015)

Title shouldn't be changed.


----------



## WolfPrinceKiba (Feb 19, 2015)

stream said:


> There are plenty of limits for acting on something. Like if you receive a fine for speeding, they tell you you have X days for contesting it. After that period is gone, you probably have to pay it even if you can prove you weren't in the country at the time of the supposed infraction.
> 
> Being ignorant of the law is unfortunately no defense in front of a judge. This particularly sucks when lawyers cost an arm and a leg.


For one, your example is also stupid scenario as that too should be a situation in which there is empirical evidence that the crime wasn't committed, therefore the person should receive no punishment. There is also a major difference between being ignorant of the law and not being in a position to meet the conditions of the law.

A parking ticket also normally doesn't add up to 30,000+. When there is a situation where there is concrete proof that someone has no reason to owe money and the amount is life changing, it should be a case in which the letter of the law is flexible, especially when the system didn't do its job properly in notifying him of the situation.


----------



## Rukia (Feb 19, 2015)

Nope.  Not paying a dime for a kid that isn't mine.  That judge would lose her bench if she hit me with a judgment like that.


----------



## Saishin (Feb 19, 2015)

Unbelievable,he should appeal,no way that he has to pay for a child that is not his


----------



## Kahvehane (Feb 19, 2015)

Juda said:


> BUT why does he have to pay for something that isnt his? wdf?. This news puts me on edge like how? why???



Because bureaucracy, essentially. 

There's always a slew of stupid appeals processes involved when it comes to revising these things. Once it's on paper, and filed away, it are fact. You then need a paper saying the previous piece of paper is a load of baloney, for which the court will produce a paper saying they've seen your new paper and will file a new paper setting a date for everyone to talk about these papers, upon which date there may or may not be any new ground made in regards to changing the original paper in which case more papers are filed and those papers beget more papers and the papers grow up and go to school and have their first kiss and buy a car and at the end you've leveled the entire rainforest over several years time just to reach the legal conclusion that you are not, in fact, the father of the child as was suggested by the contents of the One Paper.

It's kind of like Inception, honestly.

And in the meantime you're still going to be pursued to pay the child support because until the One Paper is usurped, "it are fact".


----------



## Tkae (Feb 19, 2015)

This thread is so much awesome. 

Upvote please!


----------



## Orochibuto (Feb 19, 2015)

Hachibi said:


> ...
> Sometimes I wish to be gay just so I don't get myself in such cases
> Fucking Feminazi and their bullshit. At this rate, either US or UK will fall form it and we will have a femiHitler (well, close enough but still).



UK is already going that way. See the new rulings where a guy has to prove sex was consensual to not go to court.

Or that is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a woman to be accused of rape and only men can.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 19, 2015)

What a travesty of justice. The judge who ruled on this deserves to be punished.

A man shouldn't expect justice in family court.


----------



## Meikun (Feb 19, 2015)

All the femishit aside, I'm glad the child had his father in his life.


----------



## Chelydra (Feb 20, 2015)

I see the feminist supporters are trying to get this thread's rating down


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Feb 20, 2015)

Meikun said:


> All the femishit aside, I'm glad the child had his father in his life.





Hopefully in the future random women will list you as the father of their children and the court system will extort money from you just because.

I would consider putting a hit on someone who tried to do this to me.


----------



## Meikun (Feb 20, 2015)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Hopefully in the future random women will list you as the father of their children and the court system will extort money from you just because.
> 
> I would consider putting a hit on someone who tried to do this to me.



Was there something wrong with what I wrote? 0.0 

If a random woman tried to list me as the father of her child that case would make headlines.


----------



## Alita (Feb 20, 2015)

Not gonna lie, this story makes me want to stay the hell away from every woman that isn't my mom or grandmother.


----------



## Naruko (Feb 20, 2015)

"Feminists win"? What feminist wants this, pfft. Isn't the first time a judge has made a dumb ass decision (see: the judge that ripped the kids away from the widowed father because judge said the 360lb father was too fat to be a dad. Kids sent to foster care, no visitation, nada, for ol' dad).


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 20, 2015)

Naruko said:


> "Feminists win"? What feminist wants this, pfft.



See: Feminazi

Also see: Feminazism


----------



## Krory (Feb 20, 2015)

Naruko said:


> *"Feminists win"? What feminist wants this, pfft.* Isn't the first time a judge has made a dumb ass decision (see: the judge that ripped the kids away from the widowed father because judge said the 360lb father was too fat to be a dad. Kids sent to foster care, no visitation, nada, for ol' dad).



Oh if you only knew the state of things today... I'm guessing you haven't heard much of "manspreading" or "manslamming" either, eh?


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Feb 20, 2015)

the same people bringing feminism into random shit.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 20, 2015)

Naruko said:


> "Feminists win"? What feminist wants this, pfft. Isn't the first time a judge has made a dumb ass decision (see: the judge that ripped the kids away from the widowed father because judge said the 360lb father was too fat to be a dad. Kids sent to foster care, no visitation, nada, for ol' dad).



Plenty do actually. Feminism in the west at least has lost a lot of its relevancy, it's not even about equality really, or based on the idea that preferential rights and treatment toward women would lead to that end. These kinds of decisions happened under the supposed 'patriarchy' that our society apparently is as opposed to a society that has set of assumed roles, expectations, and treatment on the basis of gender that work for and against each gender.


----------



## Orochibuto (Feb 20, 2015)

Naruko said:


> "Feminists win"? What feminist wants this, pfft. Isn't the first time a judge has made a dumb ass decision (see: the judge that ripped the kids away from the widowed father because judge said the 360lb father was too fat to be a dad. Kids sent to foster care, no visitation, nada, for ol' dad).



A lot of femnists do. In the west feminism, current feminism is about giving woman more rights rather than equality.

See: Police guidelines in UK that say a man must PROVE sex was consensual or go to court and that in the UK is IMPOSSIBLE for women to be legal rapists meaning only men can be rapists.

See: Alimony. (Though I think it can be granted to a man in some cases)

See: Unilateral parental rights

And these are only the examples that are fresh on my head.


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Feb 20, 2015)

Normality said:


> the same people bringing feminism into random shit.



That would be feminists. They can bring feminism into anything. Feminist food, feminist fashion, feminist "science", feminist yoga groups, feminist anything.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Feb 20, 2015)

Naruko said:


> "Feminists win"? What feminist wants this, pfft. Isn't the first time a judge has made a dumb ass decision (see: the judge that ripped the kids away from the widowed father because judge said the 360lb father was too fat to be a dad. Kids sent to foster care, no visitation, nada, for ol' dad).



I'm inclined to agree with the judge seeing it's a widowed father.


----------



## EJ (Feb 20, 2015)

It's after a certain amount of years I remember that the father already being under the assumption and taking a pledge to raise the child that he would still do it. I know of many cases where the father has such a strong bond and connection with the child that he still wants to help raise the child. If he wants to separate imo with the child being under his custody then the court system should definitely be in favor of that. 

If I'm close with the woman I'm with, I don't see myself taking the kid (if we had one) to a doctor in secret in getting a paternity test to see if he/she is from me as well. If we weren't close at all, hell yes I'd get one done and wouldn't be quiet about it. I wouldn't strive and be in complete denial of the child being mine however. 

The problem is you have a lot of dead beat parents that end up abandoning their own children which furthers this issue. _Someone _get's screwed over this kind of shit, no matter how you look at it. 

Title is stupid anyways due to it's outright generalization, but I don't expect it to be changed.


----------



## Mael (Feb 20, 2015)

Unicornsilovethem said:


> That would be feminists. They can bring feminism into anything. Feminist food, feminist fashion, feminist "science", feminist yoga groups, feminist anything.



Hush with your evil mansplaining.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Feb 20, 2015)

Flow said:


> It's after a certain amount of years I remember that the father already being under the assumption and taking a pledge to raise the child that he would still do it. I know of many cases where the father has such a strong bond and connection with the child that he still wants to help raise the child. If he wants to separate imo with the child being under his custody then the court system should definitely be in favor of that.
> 
> If I'm close with the woman I'm with, I don't see myself taking the kid (if we had one) to a doctor in secret in getting a paternity test to see if he/she is from me as well. If we weren't close at all, hell yes.
> 
> Title is stupid anyways due to it's outright generalization, but I don't expect it to be changed.


This has nothing to do with the court case, I'm sure he doesn't even his ex and child very well.

Good deflect though.


----------



## WolfPrinceKiba (Feb 20, 2015)

Flow said:


> It's after a certain amount of years I remember that the father already being under the assumption and taking a pledge to raise the child that he would still do it. I know of many cases where the father has such a strong bond and connection with the child that he still wants to help raise the child. If he wants to separate imo with the child being under his custody then the court system should definitely be in favor of that.
> 
> If I'm close with the woman I'm with, I don't see myself taking the kid (if we had one) to a doctor in secret in getting a paternity test to see if he/she is from me as well. If we weren't close at all, hell yes I'd get one done and wouldn't be quiet about it. I wouldn't strive and be in complete denial of the child being mine however.


Paternity tests should be mandatory, though thats another thing feminists oppose. Too afraid of what it will reveal about women.


----------



## EJ (Feb 20, 2015)

klad said:


> This has nothing to do with the court case, I'm sure he doesn't even his ex and child very well.
> 
> Good deflect though.



 I had to re-read your 'sentence' at least three times to get a grasp of what you're trying to bait with.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Feb 20, 2015)

Flow said:


> I had to re-read your 'sentence' at least three times to get a grasp of what you're trying to bait with.



Another feminist that can't use logic, why am I even surprised.

Do you support this ruling btw Flow?


----------



## EJ (Feb 20, 2015)

WolfPrinceKiba said:


> Paternity tests should be mandatory, though thats another thing feminists oppose. Too afraid of what it will reveal about women.



A father can take his child to go get a paternity test anytime he wants to do it as long as his name is on the birth certificate of the child in question. Some would claim it's an 'insult' for them to be 'required' to take one, which is why it's an option.


----------



## EJ (Feb 20, 2015)

klad said:


> Another feminist that can't use logic, why am I even surprised.



Klad, weren't you just stating in another thread that rape isn't 'that bad' or something along those lines? Why are you speaking about people's usage of logic? 




> Do you support this ruling btw Flow?



Not really.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 20, 2015)

So the tone of the thread has changed from feminists are behind this to Feminists support this kinda thing.

Keep strawmanning morons.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Feb 20, 2015)

At first I was indifferent to this feminist circlejerk bullshit is really starting to piss me off. 

Why do humans always insist on trying to find a scapegoat for everything. Its pathetic. 

Its getting really stale, and kind of makes me want to hit someone.

On Topic: What happened to this dude is pretty fucked up.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (Feb 20, 2015)

Flow said:


> A father can take his child to go get a paternity test anytime he wants to do it as long as his name is on the birth certificate of the child in question. Some would claim it's an 'insult' for them to be 'required' to take one, which is why it's an option.


And if you read the article, you'd know he has no idea where the child OR mother is and simply get the test because the court won't allow it.


Flow said:


> Klad, weren't you just stating in another thread that rape isn't 'that bad' or something along those lines? Why are you speaking about people's usage of logic?
> Not really.


Nice ad hominem, instead of addressing my point you redirect and insult me as person, good going man.

Flow, did you even read the article and see how this case goes? And be decesive, I know you don't support, some woman slapped his name as the father for god knows what and he was in jail so he had no idea about and he no longer lived in that house. Surely you must feel sympathy for that man.


----------



## WolfPrinceKiba (Feb 20, 2015)

Flow said:


> A father can take his child to go get a paternity test anytime he wants to do it as long as his name is on the birth certificate of the child in question. Some would claim it's an 'insult' for them to be 'required' to take one, which is why it's an option.


I would claim it insulting that a mother can name any man she wants on a birth certificate yet thats still the actual way things are at the moment. I give no fucks whose insulted, this is a matter involving the welfare of children and one that can majorly affect a mans income, therefore his life. A father could take his child to do those things, yet to do so wouldn't cross most guys mind as they either have valid reason to not suspect that the child might not be their, are just ignorant of whats really going on or don't want to face the reaction of the mother if she finds out. There is a social stigma that would prevent a lot of guys from going to get a paternity test if they suspected. 

A mandatory paternity test:

1. Allows the government to better discern which man is the actual father, therefore the one that legally needs to pay for most of its necessities 

2. Relieves the man of having to face the social stigma surrounding getting a paternity test done as well as the mistrust that might bring to the relationship if the woman finds out. If the child isn't his then no worries, if it his though most women would claim to be hurt by the lack of trust present in going to get such a test. If its mandatory then the woman can have no grievance with the man over it.

Its a perfect solution outside of the probable amount of money it would cost to maintain.


----------



## Krory (Feb 20, 2015)

>MbS still defending this

No wonder they were able to trick you into being ashamed of your gender so easily - you probably didn't have any balls to begin with.


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 20, 2015)

We tried to warn you sissy white males, But none of you ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) listened. We told you "Smack that Ho" but noone of you sissy white males listened.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 20, 2015)

krory said:


> >MbS still defending this



The guy didn't follow procedure so he got screwed over for it. Sucks for him, sure, and he should appeal again, but he isn't a victim.



> No wonder they were able to trick you into being ashamed of your *gender so easily - you probably didn't have any balls to begin with.



You mean *sex.

Well yeah... why should I settle for being only second best when I can be first? The Feminist Conspirators did me hard.


----------



## Hachibi (Feb 20, 2015)

Orochibuto said:


> UK is already going that way. See the new rulings where a guy has to prove sex was consensual to not go to court.
> 
> Or that is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a woman to be accused of rape and only men can.



I knew about these case (well, only the first one), that's why I stated UK.


----------



## Hachibi (Feb 20, 2015)

Also, did this shit needed 8 pages of feminists vs everyone?


----------



## Zaru (Feb 20, 2015)

MbS said:


> The guy didn't follow procedure so he got screwed over for it. Sucks for him, sure, and he should appeal again, but he isn't a victim.



"That jew didn't follow NSDAP procedure so he got screwed over for it. Sucks for him for sure, and he should appeal to the Gauleiter again, but he isn't a victim."

That's how you sound


----------



## Krory (Feb 20, 2015)

Zaru said:


> "That jew didn't follow NSDAP procedure so he got screwed over for it. Sucks for him for sure, and he should appeal to the Gauleiter again, but he isn't a victim."
> 
> That's how you sound


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 20, 2015)

Godwin's Law finally rears its head.

And it only took eight pages.

Not bad Caf?.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 20, 2015)

Zyrax said:


> We tried to warn you sissy white males, But none of you ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) listened. We told you "Smack that Ho" but none of you sissy white males listened.



I assumed the guy in the article was black.


----------



## Mael (Feb 20, 2015)

Only for a confused cunt like you, Mads.:33


----------



## Krory (Feb 20, 2015)

People need to stop confusing "Godwin's Law" with "STOP DISAGREEING WITH ME!"

I certainly hope you didn't pretend to be a woman just because you thought everyone would start agreeing with you, because you were tricked if so.


----------



## Mael (Feb 20, 2015)

krory said:


> People need to stop confusing "Godwin's Law" with "STOP DISAGREEING WITH ME!"
> 
> I certainly hope you didn't pretend to be a woman just because you thought everyone would start agreeing with you, because you were tricked if so.



You should've seen when Jello was banning anyone giving him shit when acting psycho and cunty simultaneously.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 20, 2015)

Sounds like Mael is still bitter. 

It's not so much disagreement, but the failure to make a rebuttal. Invoking Godwin's Law is as inherently useless in an debate as a sandbox in a desert. It doesn't really assert any facts discrediting the points of who you're arguing against.


----------



## Krory (Feb 20, 2015)

So basically like when Sunrider would ban anyone that tried to call out CTK for insulting Josh's pregnant wife.

Man, people white knighting even fake women is sad.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Feb 20, 2015)

Mael said:


> You should've seen when Jello was banning anyone giving him shit when acting psycho and cunty simultaneously.



Oh yeah.

I got negged by him once a long time ago for legit disagreeing with him.

...What a bitch.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 20, 2015)

Jello isn't a guy,


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 20, 2015)

krory said:


> So basically like when Sunrider would ban anyone that tried to call out CTK for insulting Josh's pregnant wife.
> 
> Man, people white knighting even fake women is sad.


CTK seems like a hypocrite, He is a massive White Knight yet is willing to act like mysgonist to suit his own agenda.


----------



## Zaru (Feb 20, 2015)

MbS said:


> Jello isn't a guy,





I see. I'm sure that's what you think.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 20, 2015)

Yeah, so anyway.


----------



## Krory (Feb 20, 2015)

>Jello
>Not a guy

Oh yeah, sure. And neither are you. 

I bet you thought Fable wasn't either, huh?


----------



## Zyrax (Feb 20, 2015)

Zaru said:


> I see. I'm sure that's what you think.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Feb 20, 2015)

> Discussing the validity of other members sex.

Well, that's another nine pages gone.


----------



## Gino (Feb 20, 2015)

Same shit different thread.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Feb 20, 2015)

krory said:


> People need to stop confusing "Godwin's Law" with "STOP DISAGREEING WITH ME!"



Godwin's Law at it's best.


----------



## Hachibi (Feb 21, 2015)

Gino said:


> Same shit different thread.



This is my exact reaction


----------



## The Pirate on Wheels (Feb 21, 2015)

krory said:


> Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Since, as I mentioned earlier, a very popular feeling being passed around to young third-wavers by their elders is that transgenders are "gender assassins," designed to throw the feminist movement off its balance and take them off course.
> 
> Unfortunately, I've seen the effects of this teaching as they hit a friend of mine - a poster from this forum formerly, actually - as she went on to major in "Social Justice" (yes, this is an actual major in some places). After having not seen her for two years, I logged on to Twitter one day to see her proclaiming a feminist march they were doing in her homestate, but threatened transgenders (and men) with "legal action" if they attempted participate.



This post is untrue because you don't have any friends.


----------



## Hachibi (Feb 21, 2015)

The Pirate on Wheels said:


> This post is untrue because you don't have any friends.



Funny thing is he does have 8 friends here


----------



## Orochibuto (Mar 11, 2015)

adee said:


> You're right, I'm sorry feminism was the root cause of all "stupid" fine print in penal codes.
> 
> *Even though this fine print isn't stupid it's just non-all-inclusive because no law ever can.*
> 
> Fuck this gay thread.



Yes it can and it should. This has to be one of the most stupid argumentations I have seen in favor of that shit.

Are you honestly defending discriminative laws?


----------

