No, you see, thats what I'm trying to argue: I wasn't net decking, I was playing my own build of affinity. But I already have moved on, I just wanted to make a point
I think the problem is that the person who accused you of net-decking has a different definition of net-decking than you do. While you are using the term in it's narrow (and strictly correct) sense of directly copying and pasting a list from the "net," you opponent is using the term in it's broader (and strictly incorrect) sense of copying the concept of your deck from the "net" while making minor adjustments of your own.
When someone like that accuses you of net-decking, I don't think your response should be "I wasn't net-decking." Rather, you should say that net-decking isn't a valid accusation at all.
Quoting a passage from my favorite philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein:
Consider for example the proceedings that we call "games". I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all?—Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games' "—but look and see whether there is anything common to all.—For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look!—Look for example at board-games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card-games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ball- games, much that is common is retained, but much is lost.—Are they all 'amusing'? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck; and at the difference between skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared! And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; can see how similarities crop up and disappear. And the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail.
I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than "family resemblances"; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc. etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same way.— And I shall say: 'games' form a family.
The passage is from Wittgenstein's posthumous work titled "Philosophical Investigations." The moral of this passage is that the concepts of our ordinary language (concepts such as "game") do not have rigid definitions. If you tried to give a rigid definition for the concept of a game, we could always find exceptions to disprove your definition. Wittgenstein suggests that rather than rigid definitions, our concepts are bound by "family resemblances" (a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing).
would you ever consider these people who defended themselves at fault for doing so?
If somebody attacks you and you try to defend yourself in response, there needs to be some proportionality between the attack and the defense. For example, if a guy slaps you and in response you pull out your gun and shoot him, then your so-called 'defense' is ridiculously disproportionate to the original attack.
In the two examples you have given I personally do not think that the defense was disproportionate to the original attack / provocation.
Yeah, I'm really happy that google decided to sell the phone at such a low price. I mean it's a competitor for the Galaxy SIII / iPhone segment at less than half the price. The fact that they're selling it unlocked also means that this is a big **** you to the carriers who typically dominate the US cell phone market.
A man should have the right to enter a contract with a woman and denounce all children born to her by him if she signs the contract without duress and it be legally binding. It would really piss off social conservatives and liberals and probably never happen, but it's the only way to really "force" a woman into anything by making sure that if she engages in sex with the male she has to commit to raising it alone, adoption, or abortion. It gives males an ejaculation ejection seat for a failed contraceptive. Especially in the cases where women may say "Yea I'd abort or give it up for adoption," then get the warm fuzzies and want to keep the baby. It would send a message to young women to also be more responsible when choosing who to sleep with, and sends a clear signal to young girls who sleep with men because they "feel they'll be taken care of."
I really like your suggestion, but I think you've got it completely backwards. I think that a woman should be able to force the man to pay child support only if he previously signed a legally binding contract that he wants to have a child with this woman. In today's society, probably 99% of sex that is had outside of marriage is not with a goal to procreate.
In sum, I think that only in the presence of a contract should the man be forced to pay child support while in the absence of a contract the woman's options by default should be single mother, adoption or abortion. Unless you are in a marriage or a civil union or some such institution (legally defined), you should not presume that sex is for the purpose of procreation.
Nothing is Forcing the mother to give away the child, we are only saying the father should have the right to choose to not take part in that child's life in any manor. Should she than CHOOSE to take on the burdon herself that is HER choice. The hardship she choose to bear, Just like it was the male's chose to choose to not have anything to do with it. She has no more right too force the male from his funds then he does force her to abandon it. I am pretty sure we have child services run by the government where you can do just that give the child up.
Also on a side note, WHo are these women who think that abortion is murder BUT pre marital sex is AOK? I was under the impression that Pro Lifers tend to be the religious crowd which if they were following their faith (in most cases) wouldn't be having sex before marriage.
Although I agree with you, I think that you're missing the point that Blinking Spirit is trying to make when you emphasize the fact that she is choosing to take on the burden of child bearing. Blinking Spirit's point seems to be that you can't really call this a choice when the only alternative is something that would be considered murder:
Let's take abortion off the table right now. It may be legal, but it's still murder in the eyes of many women, and it's absurd to hold a woman responsible for her "deliberate choice" not to commit murder.
Within a framework / world-view wherein abortion is considered to be murder, I really have no solid argument against fathers being forced to pay child support. If abortion is murder, then neither should the mother have the option of opting out (via abortion) nor should the father have the option of opting out (via non-payment of child-support).
However, I don't buy into this framework to begin with. My real argument is also against people who don't buy into this framework. I guess I mainly have a bone to pick with the extreme liberals and feminists who believe that the mother should have the option of opting out (via abortion) but the father shouldn't have the option of opting out (via non-payment of child-support). I think that this is a double standard and this is what I'm against.
You can take precautions to avoid the unwanted consequences of your actions, and these precautions can be 99+% effective, but if the consequences occur anyway then you remain responsible for them. If you drive carefully and defensively, but a deer jumps out in front of you and smashes up your car through no fault of your own, then you still have to pay to fix the damage. It's not even so much a matter of responsibility in the ethical sense as the simple fact that the damage is there, it's still going to be there no matter how much you say "not my fault!", and nobody else has any reason to pay for it (unless they're an insurance company and have agreed to do so beforehand).
Same deal with a baby. The baby may be unplanned, the result of failed contraception. Doesn't matter. It's here now, and it's not going to go anywhere. And it needs to eat. There are exactly two people in the world whose voluntary actions are responsible for this state of affairs, and if one person can't meet the baby's needs, the other has to make up the shortfall, because who else will?
Certain aspects of child support as it is implemented in the real world may be unfair, burdensome, or just plain inefficient - but the principle behind it is sound.
Your analogy is completely flawed. "If you drive carefully and defensively, but a deer jumps out in front of you and smashes up your car through no fault of your own" - then that situation was beyond your control. "[A child] is here now, and it's not going to go anywhere, and it needs to eat" - this situation clearly wasn't beyond your control. You could have aborted the pregnancy (then it wouldn't be the case that the child is "here now") or you could have given it up for adoption (then it wouldn't be the case that "it's not going to go anywhere," and "it needs to eat" would be somebody else's problem).
So, the child being here now, not going anywhere and needing to eat is a result of two deliberate choices (choosing not to abort the pregnancy and then choosing not to give the child up for adoption). If mom made both of these choices without dad's approval, then why should dad have to suffer the consequences of these choices?
It makes absolutely no sense to characterize abortion as 'wrongful death' in certain circumstances, while at the same time upholding the right to abortion in other circumstances.
You have to first of all decide whether or not an unborn fetus is a human being or not. If it is a human being, then wrongful death may be applicable but abortion surely isn't legal. If it isn't a human being, then abortion is legal but wrongful death surely isn't applicable.
There is no situation in which wrongful death is applicable to an unborn fetus and at the same time abortion is legal.
@ermir You must really live in fairy tale land. Fathers can have their paychecks stripped to the point of getting 65$ left to survive off of. And you can get incarcerated for not paying child support.
Im sorry but in the real world child support payments can ruin you financially or get you in put in jail. The women doesnt bear a harsher burden then a man who is hit with child support.
As much as I support dad's 'right to choice,' i.e. the right to opt-out of child-support, I'm not sure if you're portraying the facts accurately. As I understand the situation, although child-support payments vary from state to state, in most cases it is around 25% of dad's income.
As far as the issue at topic, I believe the father should have to be notified before an abortion can take place, and he should have to consent to the abortion and if the abortion happens with out this, he should be able to sue the women.
Well, you're the first person in this thread to support the idea that mom needs to have dad's consent before she can get an abortion. I think your's is very much a minority opinion and I certainly don't agree with it. What exactly do you think he should be able to sue for?
You can call it the mother's and the father's irresponsibility if you want. Either way which is better for society
1.) Parents that must be responsible for their children.
Or
2.) Parents that can be responsible for their children
If you agree with number one then you would have a hard time arguing that men can get out of child support by saying "I don't want too," in the whiniest voice possible.
If you believe in number two then you believe in placing a burden on the state to take of children that the state had no part in creating. What gives us the right to burden the taxpayers.
If you can give me another option i would gladly discuss that as well.
There are two other options: 1. Abortion, and 2. Adoption.
Because you are not forcing the man to give up his body.
It is my belief that forcing a woman to give birth is worse than forcing a man to pay child support.
I completely agree (as does everybody else in this thread, I think). Forcing a woman to give birth is completely unreasonable.
So your real question is why do we as society all the government to force males to pay child support for a child they did not want.
Yes! That is my real question.
I beleive it is to unburden the state. If fathers could shirk the responsibility of their actions you would definitely see a rise in orphans, abortions, and government assistance. It would create a huge increase in the welfare state.
Something that responsibility does create in a person is a drive to work.
It is exactly this line of reasoning that I am trying to call into question. Why do you say that the burden on the state is caused by the father's irresponsibility? The burden on the state is caused equally by the father and the mother.
Because the Dad doesn't have to go through a traumatizing experience to bring the child to term. To say that the father and mother are equal in a pregnancy is obviously untrue.
Well, a moment ago you said that "If [dad] didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex." Now, why can't I argue that if mom doesn't want to go through the traumatizing experience of bringing the child to term then she shouldn't have had sex?
My question is: Why is mom allowed to 'opt-out' while dad isn't? Given that the pregnancy is a result of a choice they both made.
I think the man should most definitely have to pay child support. A man shouldn't just be able to get women pregnant and then shirk all responsibility. If he didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex.
If you're a pro-life conservative, then I see nothing wrong with your reasoning. But, in my example, I said that we are assuming abortion to be legal i.e. we are assuming a pro-choice society. In this case, it seems that 'choice' is quite unbalanced between mom and dad.
You say that "a man shouldn't just be able to get women pregnant and then shirk all responsibility. If he didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex." But mom certainly has a choice to 'shirk all responsibility' by getting an abortion. Couldn't the same argument be made against mom i.e. that if she didn't want to have a kid then she shouldn't have had sex? Why is she allowed to choose to 'shirk all responsibility' while dad has no such choice?
I think the problem is that the person who accused you of net-decking has a different definition of net-decking than you do. While you are using the term in it's narrow (and strictly correct) sense of directly copying and pasting a list from the "net," you opponent is using the term in it's broader (and strictly incorrect) sense of copying the concept of your deck from the "net" while making minor adjustments of your own.
When someone like that accuses you of net-decking, I don't think your response should be "I wasn't net-decking." Rather, you should say that net-decking isn't a valid accusation at all.
The passage is from Wittgenstein's posthumous work titled "Philosophical Investigations." The moral of this passage is that the concepts of our ordinary language (concepts such as "game") do not have rigid definitions. If you tried to give a rigid definition for the concept of a game, we could always find exceptions to disprove your definition. Wittgenstein suggests that rather than rigid definitions, our concepts are bound by "family resemblances" (a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing).
If somebody attacks you and you try to defend yourself in response, there needs to be some proportionality between the attack and the defense. For example, if a guy slaps you and in response you pull out your gun and shoot him, then your so-called 'defense' is ridiculously disproportionate to the original attack.
In the two examples you have given I personally do not think that the defense was disproportionate to the original attack / provocation.
I'm interested to see how this plays out.
I really like your suggestion, but I think you've got it completely backwards. I think that a woman should be able to force the man to pay child support only if he previously signed a legally binding contract that he wants to have a child with this woman. In today's society, probably 99% of sex that is had outside of marriage is not with a goal to procreate.
In sum, I think that only in the presence of a contract should the man be forced to pay child support while in the absence of a contract the woman's options by default should be single mother, adoption or abortion. Unless you are in a marriage or a civil union or some such institution (legally defined), you should not presume that sex is for the purpose of procreation.
Framework A:
Abortion is murder.
Mom is not allowed to opt-out (via abortion).
Dad is not allowed to opt-out (via non-payment of child support).
Framework B:
Abortion is not murder.
Mom is allowed to opt-out (via abortion).
Dad is allowed to opt-out (via non-payment of child support).
Framework B*:
Abortion is not murder.
Mom is allowed to opt-out (via abortion).
Dad is not allowed to opt-out (via non-payment of child support).
---
My claim is that framework B* is inconsistent.
Although I agree with you, I think that you're missing the point that Blinking Spirit is trying to make when you emphasize the fact that she is choosing to take on the burden of child bearing. Blinking Spirit's point seems to be that you can't really call this a choice when the only alternative is something that would be considered murder:
Within a framework / world-view wherein abortion is considered to be murder, I really have no solid argument against fathers being forced to pay child support. If abortion is murder, then neither should the mother have the option of opting out (via abortion) nor should the father have the option of opting out (via non-payment of child-support).
However, I don't buy into this framework to begin with. My real argument is also against people who don't buy into this framework. I guess I mainly have a bone to pick with the extreme liberals and feminists who believe that the mother should have the option of opting out (via abortion) but the father shouldn't have the option of opting out (via non-payment of child-support). I think that this is a double standard and this is what I'm against.
Your analogy is completely flawed. "If you drive carefully and defensively, but a deer jumps out in front of you and smashes up your car through no fault of your own" - then that situation was beyond your control. "[A child] is here now, and it's not going to go anywhere, and it needs to eat" - this situation clearly wasn't beyond your control. You could have aborted the pregnancy (then it wouldn't be the case that the child is "here now") or you could have given it up for adoption (then it wouldn't be the case that "it's not going to go anywhere," and "it needs to eat" would be somebody else's problem).
So, the child being here now, not going anywhere and needing to eat is a result of two deliberate choices (choosing not to abort the pregnancy and then choosing not to give the child up for adoption). If mom made both of these choices without dad's approval, then why should dad have to suffer the consequences of these choices?
It makes absolutely no sense to characterize abortion as 'wrongful death' in certain circumstances, while at the same time upholding the right to abortion in other circumstances.
You have to first of all decide whether or not an unborn fetus is a human being or not. If it is a human being, then wrongful death may be applicable but abortion surely isn't legal. If it isn't a human being, then abortion is legal but wrongful death surely isn't applicable.
There is no situation in which wrongful death is applicable to an unborn fetus and at the same time abortion is legal.
As much as I support dad's 'right to choice,' i.e. the right to opt-out of child-support, I'm not sure if you're portraying the facts accurately. As I understand the situation, although child-support payments vary from state to state, in most cases it is around 25% of dad's income.
Well, you're the first person in this thread to support the idea that mom needs to have dad's consent before she can get an abortion. I think your's is very much a minority opinion and I certainly don't agree with it. What exactly do you think he should be able to sue for?
There are two other options: 1. Abortion, and 2. Adoption.
I completely agree (as does everybody else in this thread, I think). Forcing a woman to give birth is completely unreasonable.
Yes! That is my real question.
It is exactly this line of reasoning that I am trying to call into question. Why do you say that the burden on the state is caused by the father's irresponsibility? The burden on the state is caused equally by the father and the mother.
Well, a moment ago you said that "If [dad] didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex." Now, why can't I argue that if mom doesn't want to go through the traumatizing experience of bringing the child to term then she shouldn't have had sex?
My question is: Why is mom allowed to 'opt-out' while dad isn't? Given that the pregnancy is a result of a choice they both made.
If you're a pro-life conservative, then I see nothing wrong with your reasoning. But, in my example, I said that we are assuming abortion to be legal i.e. we are assuming a pro-choice society. In this case, it seems that 'choice' is quite unbalanced between mom and dad.
You say that "a man shouldn't just be able to get women pregnant and then shirk all responsibility. If he didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex." But mom certainly has a choice to 'shirk all responsibility' by getting an abortion. Couldn't the same argument be made against mom i.e. that if she didn't want to have a kid then she shouldn't have had sex? Why is she allowed to choose to 'shirk all responsibility' while dad has no such choice?
So far, nobody has argued against dad's right to deny child support. Any takers?
EDIT: I expected that pro-life conservaties and extreme pro-choice liberals would both argue against the dad's right to deny child support.