From: xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Mindless flame-bait (was: Proposal for Child Support Legislation)
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:13:19 -0500
Summary: You can't argue with a guy who doesn't reason.
Distribution: world
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club


zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample) wrote:

 #>  I propose the following child support legislation.
 #>     1. The courts should continue to award primary 
 #>        custody to only one parent.
 #>     2. The courts should divorce the parent who did
 #>        not receive the primary custody from his 
 #>        children -- thereby terminating both his/her 
 #>        rights (visitation) and duties (child support).

He offered absolutely no rationale or argument to justify this rather 
bizarre proposal.  I and several other people pointed out that such a 
law would be a knife in the back to any father who wants to maintain a 
relationship with his kids.  "Sample" doesn't care.
 
He also wrote:
  
 #>       "[The NCP -- i.e. the one with primary custody] can refuse 
 #>       visitation and extort money with impunity
 #>          -- because forced visitation [on the NCP] is a form of rape."
 #>  
 #> Xenon Replied:
 #> 
 #>      "Yeah, right... when have you ever heard of any parent being 
 #>      "forced" to visit their own kid?
 #>      
 #> I meant that the NCP -- NOT the CP (i.e. the one without primary 
 #> custody) -- shouldn't be forced to provide visitation.
 #> 

Is he saying that fathers should not be forced to visit their kids (as I 
inferred in my previous reply), or is he saying that mothers should not 
have to allow fathers to see their kids?   I still can't tell.  Either 
way, he doesn't offer any justification for his position.  

One might with as much logic, say "There should be a law that all 
restaurants should give me free ice cream cones"  But why?  "Because not 
giving me free ice cream cones is a form of rape."  That kind of 
statement is trite and not particularly convincing. 

I do not believe that it is "a form of rape" for a father to see his 
children.

 #> Then I [Sample] wrote:
 #> 
 #>      "Mature people accept divorce -- even dad-kid divorce."
 #> 
 #> Xenon responded:
 #> 
 #>      "Well, you have been "divorced" from a chunk of your paycheck.
 #>      Be mature and accept it."
 #>      
 #> I have accepted it -- why did you think that I hadn't.

Because you have been crying and moaning because the law won't let you 
"divorce" your responsibilities for what seems like an eternity!  I 
swear, I never saw such a CRYBABY in my whole life!  You have been 
playing this one-note boogie for as long as I can remember.  What is it, 
do your kids look too much like the plumber or what? 
  
"Sample" then wrote:

 #> Xenon continues:
 #>   
 #>      "I sure don't see any increase in the popularity of vasectomies."
 #>      
 #> I have a vasectomy -- I highly recommend it.

What I said, in its entirety, was this:

"Incidentally, just about every man who has kids loses money on the deal,
divorced or not (unless your kid becomes a rock star or something).  I guess
most men would rather have the kids than the money, cause I sure don't see any
increase in the popularity of vasectomies."

My point was that if most men would rather have children than the money 
it costs to raise them, then most men would suffer under a mandatory 
"dad-kid divorce law" such as "Sample" proposed. 

Notice that "Sample" didn't really respond to my argument at all.  He 
always has a comeback, but he seldom if ever attempts to reason.  His 
postings are little more than a series of blatant, often inflammatory 
statements with virtually no rationale as to why anyone else should take 
them seriously.  Nor, apparently, is he ever moved by anyone else's 
arguments.  One might as well argue with an alarm clock or a barking 
dog.

And finally, "Sample's" parting shot:
 
 #> WHY CAN'T YOU "MEN" OUT THERE LEARN TO LIVE WITHOUT YOUR KIDS?
 
A person can "learn to live without" a lot of things.  You could 
probably "learn to live without" your *balls*, but I imagine you would 
prefer not to be forced to part with them.  I might be able to "learn to 
live without" sight, but that doesn't mean that it would be a matter of 
indifference if the courts were routinely sentencing ex-fathers to have 
their eyes gouged out.  If you walk down Main Street you can see people 
who have "learned to live without" almost everything... no job, no home, 
no money. no friends, no family.  I sympathize with people like that... 
but I do not aspire to be like that myself.  It's not that I "can't" 
learn to live without... it is that I refuse to do so.  Why SHOULD I?  

I have at least as much right to have a relationship with my kids as my 
ex does, and any court that doesn't recognize that is bigoted and 
unjust.  Resignation and passive acquiescence to evil is NO VIRTUE. 


Note again:  "Sample" offered no argument here, no attempt to persuade, no 
reasoning as to *why* anyone should agree with him that men ought to 
'learn to live without'... It's just another inflammatory statement from 
a guy who obviously gets his jollies by pissing people off.  He doesn't 
really care if anyone agrees with him... if you even bother to respond 
at all, he's got what he wanted... and the angrier you get, the better 
he likes it. 

I hesitated to even respond to such puerile and obvious flame-bait, and I
doubt that I will be contributing any further to this thread.  After 
today I'll probably just ignore "Sample" the same way that almost 
everyone else does, unless by some miracle he starts posting things that 
have at least some semblance of logic to them. 

- xenon