Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-09-2010, 08:33 PM
 
3,486 posts, read 5,672,915 times
Reputation: 3868

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
So if I am tested my rights where violated? I think I passed the Constitution test. What an irony.
Your Constitution test? As in, that citizenship civics nonsense? That hardly means you know the Constitution. For one thing, it seems you don't understand first thing about due process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Isn't allowing people to know how much I know a violation of my privacy? Truancy laws should be abolished. So should finger printing. Its my skin oil.
And this is proof. There is no such thing as a general right to privacy under the Constitution -- but there is such a thing as a requirement of probable cause for violating somebody's bodily integrity (that's what being safe in one's "person" is all about), and making the remedy proportional, narrow, and rationally related to a governmental objective that is either compelling or at least legitimate (depending on the level of scrutiny which applies).

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Its not the same just cause eh?
No, it's not the same because it's not the same. Otherwise, you can go ahead and claim that anything is like anything else. And say that strip-searching someone for the hell of it doesn't violate the Constitution either because hey, eating a Hersheys Kiss doesn't. Make an analogy that actually works -- until then, kindly lay off that whole "false dichotomies" refrain of yours, it's more than a little ironic.

 
Old 04-09-2010, 08:35 PM
 
3,486 posts, read 5,672,915 times
Reputation: 3868
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Try to break it up if you are going to do a vivisection of an amphibian.
I am not reading through that. Skimming it looks like you collected newspaper clippings of an obsession in your shrine, and you decided now is the time to burn them.

The spicy flavor of a fly when I burp is not that important to me and that is all there is to it.
*Shrug* I don't particularly care what it looks like to you, quite frankly.

B -- please don't pour anymore into his glass, I beg you. I think he's had enough.
 
Old 04-09-2010, 09:11 PM
 
20,599 posts, read 19,259,253 times
Reputation: 8204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Your Constitution test? As in, that citizenship civics nonsense? That hardly means you know the Constitution. For one thing, it seems you don't understand first thing about due process.

And this is proof. There is no such thing as a general right to privacy under the Constitution -- but there is such a thing as a requirement of probable cause for violating somebody's bodily integrity (that's what being safe in one's "person" is all about), and making the remedy proportional, narrow, and rationally related to a governmental objective that is either compelling or at least legitimate (depending on the level of scrutiny which applies).

No, it's not the same because it's not the same. Otherwise, you can go ahead and claim that anything is like anything else. And say that strip-searching someone for the hell of it doesn't violate the Constitution either because hey, eating a Hersheys Kiss doesn't. Make an analogy that actually works -- until then, kindly lay off that whole "false dichotomies" refrain of yours, it's more than a little ironic.

Redisca,

This is your typical tangential tactics. The image was obviously not in the context of asserting my knowledge of the Constitution. It was light mockery.

Next we have R(TM) logic. The woman's bodily integrity is not violated. The test is between the speculative father and the child.

So, as usual, you are wrong(when arguing with me).

Last edited by gwynedd1; 04-09-2010 at 10:12 PM..
 
Old 04-09-2010, 10:12 PM
 
20,599 posts, read 19,259,253 times
Reputation: 8204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
*Shrug* I don't particularly care what it looks like to you, quite frankly.

B -- please don't pour anymore into his glass, I beg you. I think he's had enough.

Greetings Redisca,

No one writes two paragraphs that look like the Pillars of Hercules and doesn't care.

Perhaps it is hatred, but you care. I am sorry I cannot oblige because ,truth be told, I kind of like you. You have your flaws like a 100 year old Victorian house but maintenance is not hatred. The *shrug* affectation just does not fit the long winded condemnation. It was a reply in kind. So I repair. Mind those details.

I am amused when a bursting hot pipe blows in the face of a common foe. I loved the Nice Guy(TM). I enjoy watching you feast upon your better kills. Though other times I must look at your mouthful of feathers with a smirk.

You said to lighten up so I said you suck. Lighten up, don't lighten up, but its true I don't care what you think of me. However you misunderstand, I care what I think of you.
 
Old 04-09-2010, 10:28 PM
 
20,599 posts, read 19,259,253 times
Reputation: 8204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Dying of terrorism is a random event. Infidelity is not. Your wife doesn't have a 5% chance of sleeping around on you. She either is or she isn't. That when you look at 100 women, 5 will, has no bearing on YOUR marriage. She's either trustworthy or she's not. If she't not, why are you married to her? I don't care what the stats say, the odds of me having an affair remain zero. Why lump the 95% who aren't sleeping around with the 5% and treat them like sluts? What's the point.
Hi Ivorytickler,

Sophism works for you. I get it. Since we lack omniscience, as in your assumption above, there is only probability. That is why you are wrong.

Quote:
However, let's go with your terrorism argument. Can we now strip search everyone we think looks, say, middle eastern because there's a 5% chance he/she may be a terrorist? Do you see nothing wrong with violating the rights of the 95% who are not terrorists (I'm not insinuating that 5% of middle eastern people are terrorists simply trying to make a point that you don't assume everyone is guilty because some are)... but oh, wait, wasn't Timothy McVeigh a white american...maybe we should start treating all white american males as if they're going to blow up a federal building. I mean you just never know when one will....
There is no strip search. There is a swab test to see if the prospective father and child are related. When you leave the hospital, they check the wristbands to see if the prospective parents are related to the child. All this violation of privacy crap is complete BS. You are a Scot that tells me haggis tastes good.


Quote:
There is something really wrong when you assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
There is, if that were the case.
 
Old 04-10-2010, 12:38 AM
 
4,837 posts, read 8,839,297 times
Reputation: 3026
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipoppy View Post
Turn off The Jerry Springer Show and step away from your TV.

Paternity is just simply not a major issue in most births in America.
Yeah. "Only" 20 to 30 percent.
 
Old 04-10-2010, 12:57 AM
 
4,837 posts, read 8,839,297 times
Reputation: 3026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutz76 View Post
I'd fully support a constitutional amendment that expressly permitted children to know who their biological parents are. It should institute mandatory paternity testing, abolish anonymous sperm donations, and give legal guardians the contact and possibly limited medical info on the biological parents that put their kids up for adoption, if at all possible. Kids deserve to know who their biological parents are, and there are plenty of instances where their lives literally depend on it.
Men are starting to fully understand that the feminist agenda has long since moved on from equality to "Me, Me, Me".

Here we have a technology that can determine with complete accuracy who the father of a child is.

This is beneficial to both these children and men who are getting screwed by this abhorrent behavior.

Instead, all the women want is to have things the old way, prior to the modern feminist movement and the availability of testing. Why? Because it is both financially advantageous to them and it allows them to have their cake and eat it too.

What they don't realize is that this certainty will strengthen marriage and men's willingness to undertake it. At the same time, this will drastically reduce the incidence of women using their husband for financial support while providing free sex to someone who they would likely not consider "worth" getting married to, due to their inability to support them in the manner to which they've become accustomed. With mandatory testing, such women could get their financial support from where they deserve to get it - from the men they so freely give themselves to and who fathered their child. If he is so wonderful, perhaps they can get married instead.

This will leave the man they are using, to keep his money and be able to find a woman who appreciates him.

Seems fair and reasonable to me.

So there is no element of "you don't trust me?!?!", make the testing mandatory, for the benefit of all children.
 
Old 04-10-2010, 02:07 AM
 
Location: On the dark side of the Moon
9,930 posts, read 13,899,778 times
Reputation: 9178
Oh no!!! Are we going to get the castrated pony analogy here???

Anyone with me on this one?
 
Old 04-10-2010, 04:52 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,438,093 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Hi Ivorytickler,

Sophism works for you. I get it. Since we lack omniscience, as in your assumption above, there is only probability. That is why you are wrong.

There is no strip search. There is a swab test to see if the prospective father and child are related. When you leave the hospital, they check the wristbands to see if the prospective parents are related to the child. All this violation of privacy crap is complete BS. You are a Scot that tells me haggis tastes good.


There is, if that were the case.
Probability, in this case, only applies to a group. It does not apply to an individual. Individuals either do or don't cheat. They are not 5% cheaters and 95% non cheaters .

Either I'm going to cheat on my husband or I am not. The statistical probablility of one individual in a group cheating has nothing to do with that. It's not random. It's not like walking into a super market and becomming the random target of a violent act. THAT can happen to anyone. I am never going to cheat. It's not my nature. No statistic in the world will change that. Put me in a random group and I will be in the 95%.

Wristbands are just to make sure the right baby goes home with the right mother. There is no comparison here. The father goes with the mother. If he thinks she's a cheating ho, then he needs to address that. If he thinks she's not (right or wrong) and wants to preserve his relationship with her, then he takes the risk that he might be wrong and the child really isn't his. Unfortunately, without trust you cannot have love. Without love or trust, why be in a relationship with someone?

Had my husband asked for a DNA test on either of our kids I would have handed him the results with one hand and divorce papers with the other. While he has every right to know, if he actually questions paternity, I do not have to stay with someone who thinks I cheat on them when I have given them no cause to think I cheated on them. The question you need to answer is whether or not your lack of trust in your mate is worth ruining your relationship over.

Actually, in your case it is. No woman deserves to be stuck in a realationship with a man who assumes she's a cheating ho unless she proves she's not (and how many times must she prove this? A paternity test today...what will it be tomorrow? A regularly scheduled lie detector test? After all, you can't trust her, can you?). You should be honest, up front, with any women you want to make babies with. Tell her you don't trust her and never will. Tell her you think all women are lying, cheating, ho's so she can decide whether or not your worth keeping around in spite of that.

If we had a DNA test to determine the liklihood someone is a terrorist would you support everyone having to be tested? Drug use is related to violent crime, and we can test to see if people are on drugs, why are you not screaming about that? Why shouldn't we be testing everyone, at their own expense, so we can identify potential criminals and take care of them before they make any more victims?

I have two pieces of advice for you. 1) get yourself fixed so there are no babies made you have to worry about and 2) don't get into a long term relationship unless you tell her you will never trust her. You have, obvious, trust issues with women. Since you value knowing the truth, be honest up front and tell her you can never trust her, that you will require paternity tests and whatever proof you dream up later that she's not a cheating ho.

You are assuming every woman is guilty unless proven innocent. After all you are requiring them to prove their innocence and you are refusing to believe them. If my husband treated me this way, he would not be my husband for long.
 
Old 04-10-2010, 05:08 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,438,093 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotARedneck View Post
Yeah. "Only" 20 to 30 percent.
Is this one of those statistics that was made up on the spot??

Seriously, post your source for this one. I find this one hard to believe and if it is true, which 20-30% of the population are we talking about? Are we talking married couples who are in long term relationships or the single moms who get knocked up at frat parties?

Believe it or not, you can tell a lot about a person by their behavior. I'm sure there are women out there at high risk of getting pregnant and not knowing who the father is. If I were a man, I'd stay away from them but guys often think with their little head not their big one.

The error in thinking is thinking that the risk is 20-30% (if it is that high) in all relationships. That simply is not true. Even if it is the overall risk, you are lumping drug addicted women selling themselves for drugs and teenagers with no father figure looking for love in all the worn places who might get pregnant and not know who the father is with women like me who were happily married for 17 years before popping one out. Do you really think the risk is 20-30% the man we put on the birth certificate is not the father in all three cases?

This thread is making me realize what a gem I have in my husband. Given that the doctor had told him it would be 2-3 years before his sperm count was high enough to TRY IVF (vasectomy reversal) at the time I got pg with dd#1, I'm sure he could have questioned. Dd#2 was every bit of a 10 month pregnancy and looks nothing like him. Yet he never asked for a DNA test. I assure you they are both his and if he asked me to prove that, I would (well I wouldn't now because he has already established himself as their father and they would know what is going on and, IMO, you don't establish yourself as a father and then walk away, which my dh would never do given he's already raised one to adulthood that was not his biological child.) and then I'd hand him the divorce papers. When you lose trust, you've lost everything. Even three years later, we still struggle with the fact my husband was with someone else during our separation. I struggle with being able to trust him but he's given me reason not to trust him. I have never given him reason not to trust me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:02 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top