| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Nic" |
| Date: |
28 Nov 2007 05:28:06 AM |
| Object: |
on child support |
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
.
|
|
| User: "brian fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
28 Nov 2007 05:22:39 PM |
|
|
"Nic" <n.m.keele@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c998a3af-10c2-4576-8561-ae299ea58f1d@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
Not compared with entering the fray, and finding out first hand.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
29 Nov 2007 04:55:19 AM |
|
|
On Nov 28, 11:28 am, Nic <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
I agree - now go tell it to the judge!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
28 Nov 2007 09:58:54 AM |
|
|
On Nov 28, 6:28 am, Nic <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
That is unless the man has an obligation to her.
If you enter into a pact with someone and then you violate the terms
of that pact that does not free you from meeting your obligations as
dictated by that pact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nic" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
28 Nov 2007 11:38:47 AM |
|
|
On 28 Nov, 15:58, wrote:
On Nov 28, 6:28 am, Nic <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
That is unless the man has an obligation to her.
If you enter into a pact with someone and then you violate the terms
of that pact that does not free you from meeting your obligations as
dictated by that pact.
by 'pact' you mean some sort of agreement, legal or contractual?
although it could also mean under obligation or threat in some way?
are there any circumstances where thats true? where men are
obliged to pay a woman or an individual when there are no children?
or where s/he wasn't employed or shared business in the past?
I've also heard of relatives who've cared for children sue for support
because mom has had to find work. Also of employed single moms taking
in unemployed single dads, and she being sued by -his- ex for child
support.
:/
(I'm going through a bit of a phase at the moment!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
28 Nov 2007 05:24:32 PM |
|
|
"Nic" <n.m.keele@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:db2838f2-4f32-4f8f-8466-3232c4ecab0a@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 28 Nov, 15:58, wrote:
On Nov 28, 6:28 am, Nic <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
That is unless the man has an obligation to her.
If you enter into a pact with someone and then you violate the terms
of that pact that does not free you from meeting your obligations as
dictated by that pact.
by 'pact' you mean some sort of agreement, legal or contractual?
although it could also mean under obligation or threat in some way?
are there any circumstances where thats true? where men are
obliged to pay a woman or an individual when there are no children?
or where s/he wasn't employed or shared business in the past?
I've also heard of relatives who've cared for children sue for support
because mom has had to find work. Also of employed single moms taking
in unemployed single dads, and she being sued by -his- ex for child
support.
:/
(I'm going through a bit of a phase at the moment!)
So you "are" in the fray.:-)
There is more self searching (and finding) in this arena than most others.
(The main reason it happens).
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
29 Nov 2007 04:57:41 AM |
|
|
On Nov 28, 3:58 pm, wrote:
On Nov 28, 6:28 am, Nic <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
That is unless the man has an obligation to her.
If you enter into a pact with someone and then you violate the terms
of that pact that does not free you from meeting your obligations as
dictated by that pact.
But whomsoever violates the pact, there is still a sexist assumption
that the man has to meet the obligation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
29 Nov 2007 08:56:45 AM |
|
|
"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ff564ffb-0940-4797-abdb-8d4ebf5e3e76@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 28, 3:58 pm, wrote:
On Nov 28, 6:28 am, Nic <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
That is unless the man has an obligation to her.
If you enter into a pact with someone and then you violate the terms
of that pact that does not free you from meeting your obligations as
dictated by that pact.
But whomsoever violates the pact, there is still a sexist assumption
that the man has to meet the obligation.
If there is a "duckist" perception, does one have to quack?
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
29 Nov 2007 12:32:52 PM |
|
|
On Nov 29, 2:56 pm, "brian fletcher" <brian...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ff564ffb-0940-4797-abdb-8d4ebf5e3e76@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 28, 3:58 pm, wrote:
On Nov 28, 6:28 am, Nic <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
That is unless the man has an obligation to her.
If you enter into a pact with someone and then you violate the terms
of that pact that does not free you from meeting your obligations as
dictated by that pact.
But whomsoever violates the pact, there is still a sexist assumption
that the man has to meet the obligation.
If there is a "duckist" perception, does one have to quack?
BOfL-
Only for people who are quackers!
But you have to be quackers to be stupid enough to get married these
days.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
30 Nov 2007 02:05:21 AM |
|
|
"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d4d55d6-4858-413c-a269-21445748a63f@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 2:56 pm, "brian fletcher" <brian...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ff564ffb-0940-4797-abdb-8d4ebf5e3e76@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 28, 3:58 pm, wrote:
On Nov 28, 6:28 am, Nic <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
That is unless the man has an obligation to her.
If you enter into a pact with someone and then you violate the terms
of that pact that does not free you from meeting your obligations as
dictated by that pact.
But whomsoever violates the pact, there is still a sexist assumption
that the man has to meet the obligation.
If there is a "duckist" perception, does one have to quack?
BOfL-
Only for people who are quackers!
But you have to be quackers to be stupid enough to get married these
days.
I have always seen marriage as a biological process.
Good proof of a priori woldnt you say :-)
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
30 Nov 2007 03:17:17 AM |
|
|
On Nov 30, 8:05 am, "brian fletcher" <brian...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d4d55d6-4858-413c-a269-21445748a63f@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 2:56 pm, "brian fletcher" <brian...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ff564ffb-0940-4797-abdb-8d4ebf5e3e76@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 28, 3:58 pm, wrote:
On Nov 28, 6:28 am, Nic <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
That is unless the man has an obligation to her.
If you enter into a pact with someone and then you violate the terms
of that pact that does not free you from meeting your obligations as
dictated by that pact.
But whomsoever violates the pact, there is still a sexist assumption
that the man has to meet the obligation.
If there is a "duckist" perception, does one have to quack?
BOfL-
Only for people who are quackers!
But you have to be quackers to be stupid enough to get married these
days.
I have always seen marriage as a biological process.
Good proof of a priori woldnt you say :-)
I can't see what you are driving at. Where is the a priori?
BOfL- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
30 Nov 2007 09:19:01 AM |
|
|
"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:252e62a6-f7a8-46ca-aeff-fc77f833b997@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 30, 8:05 am, "brian fletcher" <brian...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d4d55d6-4858-413c-a269-21445748a63f@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 2:56 pm, "brian fletcher" <brian...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ff564ffb-0940-4797-abdb-8d4ebf5e3e76@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 28, 3:58 pm, wrote:
On Nov 28, 6:28 am, Nic <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
That is unless the man has an obligation to her.
If you enter into a pact with someone and then you violate the
terms
of that pact that does not free you from meeting your obligations
as
dictated by that pact.
But whomsoever violates the pact, there is still a sexist assumption
that the man has to meet the obligation.
If there is a "duckist" perception, does one have to quack?
BOfL-
Only for people who are quackers!
But you have to be quackers to be stupid enough to get married these
days.
I have always seen marriage as a biological process.
Good proof of a priori woldnt you say :-)
I can't see what you are driving at. Where is the a priori?
To be born into a religiously dominated society, but to see 'through' the
whole process from an eary age.
Justa small part of a big picture.
BOfL
BOfL- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "kevirwin" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
30 Nov 2007 12:02:44 PM |
|
|
On Nov 30, 10:19 am, "brian fletcher" <brian...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
To be born into a religiously dominated society, but to see 'through' the
whole process from an eary age.
Justa small part of a big picture.
Oooh!!! I think I did that!!!
K e v
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
01 Dec 2007 02:44:23 AM |
|
|
"kevirwin" <kevirwin@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bf5e708d-d677-4073-9827-cdfc76f15f22@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 30, 10:19 am, "brian fletcher" <brian...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
To be born into a religiously dominated society, but to see 'through' the
whole process from an eary age.
Justa small part of a big picture.
Oooh!!! I think I did that!!!
K e v
Now look in the mirror, clear your throat, and sing a couple of choruses of
"Getting To Know You, Getting To Know All About You" heheheheheh..
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: on child support |
03 Dec 2007 01:08:01 PM |
|
|
On Nov 30, 3:19 pm, "brian fletcher" <brian...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:252e62a6-f7a8-46ca-aeff-fc77f833b997@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 30, 8:05 am, "brian fletcher" <brian...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9d4d55d6-4858-413c-a269-21445748a63f@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 2:56 pm, "brian fletcher" <brian...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ff564ffb-0940-4797-abdb-8d4ebf5e3e76@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 28, 3:58 pm, wrote:
On Nov 28, 6:28 am, Nic <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
These days when education is free to all and women
have some sort of equality with men in the everyday
working career world, men should NEVER pay a penny
to support any woman unless it is to support his children
with her?
Is this worthy of debate?
That is unless the man has an obligation to her.
If you enter into a pact with someone and then you violate the
terms
of that pact that does not free you from meeting your obligations
as
dictated by that pact.
But whomsoever violates the pact, there is still a sexist assumption
that the man has to meet the obligation.
If there is a "duckist" perception, does one have to quack?
BOfL-
Only for people who are quackers!
But you have to be quackers to be stupid enough to get married these
days.
I have always seen marriage as a biological process.
Good proof of a priori woldnt you say :-)
I can't see what you are driving at. Where is the a priori?
To be born into a religiously dominated society, but to see 'through' the
whole process from an eary age.
Justa small part of a big picture.
I don't think we share the same definition of "a priori".
BTW "see through" implies that there is something on the otherside of
the transparent "religious society". Is there anything there to share
with us?
BOfL
BOfL- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
