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.
In this thread I made that statement. I said men, generally speaking, will consider children baggage especially if they do not have their own children. By not lying and telling the truth, I am bad. That about sums it up.
I guess I should clarify why I posted on this thread at all. I just want to dispel the general notion that men hate to raise other men's kids. Divorced men, anyway, will complete reject his original children upon remarrying, if the second marriage producing new children or even step children. They do it all the time.
A single man, yes i understand he'd rather not be with a single mother. but I think saying that men hate to raise someone else's children is way to simplistic.
I guess I should clarify why I posted on this thread at all. I just want to dispel the general notion that men hate to raise other men's kids. Divorced men, anyway, will complete reject his original children upon remarrying, if the second marriage producing new children or even step children. They do it all the time.
A single man, yes i understand he'd rather not be with a single mother. but I think saying that men hate to raise someone else's children is way to simplistic.
Oh you genius. We are the same person. You caught us(me).
I may sound like someone who knows the basic rules of rhetoric. The reason is because you are the common element ,and it is obvious to anyone who knows the basic rules of logic. A room full of people will notice the same stink.
Since you keep bringing someone else into it, even though I expressed my displeasure at the unseemliness of it , you remind me of boffo the clown.
Actually, you don't sound like someone who understand the rules of rhetoric since you so frequently violate the very rules you claim apply to debate. Among your other insults, you've called me an infant and now boffo the clown. That makes you a hypocrite. People who talk about the rules of proper debate and then break those rules have no credibility.
Didn't think this needed explaining but here goes: its simple numbers, when theres an extra body in the house. bills go up for the bread winners. Higher electricity bill, more food needed for the house. Could be something simple like you're stopping to get fast for you and your g/f but now you have to also bring food for the kid/s or you have to take the whole clan out to dinner.
Lets see, u will probably pay more rent b/c u will need a bigger apartment, and lets not forget the times when your g/f money is light (due to the kid) and she needs a hand. Or this popular plan takes effect; the woman hates her job and stops working altogether until she finds a gig/career that makes her happy; all the bills now fall on guess who?
Does it make a lil more sense now? It may not happen right away but its a gradual spending increase.
That is one scenario. And one that applies to people with no children and couples that have their own children. If one takes issue with financial compromise in order be in a family unit then they are best served remaining single.
Actually, If Denny moves in with a single mom he is moving into her house so –his rent is gone and I would assume he would help with utilities and food but again he is still cutting his previous expenses of supporting a separate household. Most likely this woman is working because she has managed to support herself and child. Sure he may have to kick in a pick up some mcdonalds or a pizza once in awhile, but he is also gaining a cook and housekeeper.
If she isn’t working, the scenario is probably more like she is living in section 8 housing collecting food stamps and other benefits. So guy is living rent free and getting fed. This is a situation you see often and hear fathers paying cs complain about.
First, not all utility bills are a function of how many people are in the house. Basic cable costs the same regardless of whether I live alone or with someone. Likewise, if I'm watching TV in my living room or cooking dinner in my kitchen, the light will be on if it's just me or me, my GF and her kid.
Second, I may not need a bigger place to accommodate the three of us. Suppose I have a home. Most homes have more than one bedroom. So whether I use that second bedroom as an office or give it to her kid, my housing expense is the same.
Third, your second paragraph assumes events that may not happen. Like the GF asking for money when she's spent hers on her kids. Or when she gets fed up with her job and decides to quit leaving me with all the bills. If the person is responsible, they won't let that happen. They know their child is their responsibility, not yours. So your concerns presume that all single mothers will someday reveal themselves to irresponsible freeloaders.
Fourth, suppose instead of a child, it was your wife's mother coming to stay with you. Then all the reasons you just gave still apply. So if you're going to exclude a woman on the basis of having to pay more expenses because of her kid, shouldn't you also exclude a woman whose mother could potentially come live with you as well? Or would you just tell her that her mother couldn't come stay with you because you don't want to pay more for her?
Denny Denny Denny!!!!!!! You cant make this much sense and expect certain people to understand it! It makes too much sense! Afterall. What does an "infant" and "Boffo the clown" like you understand??????
I know now that you reject scientific studies that display the links between the fact that men dislike other men's children and male biology. Despite the fact that the report clearly states that men commit far more violent crimes against their stepchildren than they do against their own children. Of course you will willfully ignore that correlation as well.
You've attempted to place a burden of proof in my lap, which I have met, and now you're declaring to yourself that it was insufficient. If you were a court judge, this would work, but clearly you are merely a city-data poster unwilling to accept the academic research that you asked for. You do so under the guise that you are too willfully ignorant to see the correlation that the studies have made (including the studies within the article, which for whatever reason you arent refuting).
LOL. You haven't met any burden of proof. What have you shown so far? That men respond more favorably to pictures of kids who look like them. That more men commit violence against their stepkids than they do their own. But if you think this qualifies as sufficient proof that men detest other men's kids, you're the one who'd be laughed out of a court of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
As you've guessed by now, Im not going to prove anything else to you with science as I have here. You're obviously not a fan of science (I would even say you oppose it) nor empiricism so no point in going down that road again...proof isnt something you are capable of grasping nor accepting. We'll just be wasting more of our time...of course you will translate this to mean that I "cant" provide proof of blah blah blah...whatever, practice what you preach first, and then we'll exchange references.
I'm a fan of science. What I'm not a fan of is the way you interpret them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
sure it supports the claim...that you're in denial about the conclusion it makes supporting my claim doesnt change that...unfortunately you can provide no empirical proof of your own that it is isnt an indicator of the biological preferences of men.
Nice try. But it doesn't no matter how many times you say so. The burden of proof is on you, not me. It's not my job to disprove your claim. If you think it is, then you clearly have no understanding of how science works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
Ive supported my claim and roundly suppressed your challenge..and you have failed to present evidence that I havent. (other than your arbitrary accusations of me failing to support my claim, that is)
More ridiculous logic. The burden is still on you to provide convincing evidence, which you haven't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
I mean, sure I failed to provide convincing proof to YOU...you have no way of measuring what is proof or not proof....heck, you dont even have support for you own arguments, let alone proof that mine is untrue. Unable to provide opposing references of your own, you simply discard research and studies. No prob, I realize that you're basically operating on arbitrary playground logic at this point...nothing you have presented disproves my sources...no references, no valid points lmao...and no logic
For all your talk of understanding science, you clearly don't. If someone asserts God exists and provides unconvincing evidence, is the burden on me to then disprove his claim? Of course not. Science isn't about disproving anything. Your problem is you can't support your claim and now you're just trying to deflect by saying it's my job to disprove you. Talk about fence shifting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
Just because you cant comprehend studies and research, dont assume everyone else cant.
You're the one who can't comprehend them. It's not my fault if you make enormous leaps in logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
again, whats really sad is your inability to provide any real argument to the contrary in the first place...downright tragic.
No, what's really sad is that you can't prove your point and now you're trying to shift the burden of proof onto me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
bottom line: I claimed it, you demanded proof and I backed it up and your laughable clown logic cant comprehend science much less defend against it..lmao
lol..now you're just shifting the fence and crying about the fact that your simple logic and wishful thinking has been handily trounced..
Bottom line: Your logic is laughable because you think reactions to pictures is convincing proof. And the fact that you have to constantly declare your arguments as sound and even pat yourself on the back by saying I've been handily trounced just points to your insecurity. Your arguments should be able to stand on their own without needing you declare them to be good ones. The problem is you can't back up your claim, you're trying to shift the burden of proof onto me, and deflect by attacking me. That speaks volumes.
Denny you would save us a lot of time if you would just go bang fugly. If you wanted kids you probably would have had them by now.
If your opinion mattered to me, that might actually bother me. Too bad it doesn't cause it's blatantly obvious what you are.
All you can offer is the tired "men will sleep with a mother if she's hot enough." In other words, all men are the same. If a man made a broad generalization about women, he would be labeled sexist. So we can say the same about you. Second, as this thread has demonstrated, there are men out there who would be open to dating a single mom and not just for sex. How do you respond? By telling them to "go bang fugly." In other words, your assumption about men has been disproven and now all you can do is resort to personal attacks. As for your last statement about having had kids by now, I guess in your world, people don't go to school or spend time establishing their career.
Last edited by DennyCrane; 04-14-2010 at 09:58 AM..
Actually, you don't sound like someone who understand the rules of rhetoric since you so frequently violate the very rules you claim apply to debate. Among your other insults, you've called me an infant and now boffo the clown. That makes you a hypocrite. People who talk about the rules of proper debate and then break those rules have no credibility.
That is because you are trying to think with an ossified hat rack. I told to you that once someone insults me, I am at liberty. This all started when you told me to grow up, so I called you an infant. A smooth crotch ken doll is the toy for you.
Denny Denny Denny!!!!!!! You cant make this much sense and expect certain people to understand it! It makes too much sense! Afterall. What does an "infant" and "Boffo the clown" like you understand??????
Hi Capt. Dan,
Yeah, real brilliant. Economic calculations with assumed sunk costs. Since most younger single men rent, its going to be calculated as a prospective cost especially in the context of 20 something and early 30s men. That means real money. I know; the truth sucks.
By the time you are in your late 30's and 40's most hot women will have had kids. Get used to it.
Denny you would save us a lot of time if you would just go bang fugly. If you wanted kids you probably would have had them by now.
Wow.....that was pretty.....what's the word I'm looking for.....rude? Why the personal attack? A little uncalled for, no?
Btw, sometimes I'm in the mood for vanilla, and sometimes I'm in the mood for chocolate, and sometimes I even want both at the same time--imagine that!!! Doesn't prove that I like one more than the other in the least, so it's not the best analogy. And it doesn't suprise me that any person, male or female, would pick pictures of kids that look like them, I think most people tend to want to associate with people who they perceive to be most like themselves, even if it is on a subconscious level, but that doesn't mean that they hate everyone else.
I would be curious to see if there was a specific study that could provide real life statistics regarding higher rates of violence by men against stepchildren versus their own biological children, and moreover if this is the case what factors account for this phenomenon if it in fact it is true. The answers may have absolutely nothing to do with whether the aforementioned men like or dislike their stepchildren and more to do with the individual circumstances. It would make for some fascinating reading...
Denny, kudos to you for not responding in kind to the personal attacks that appear to have been directed at you. Unnecessary to have a debate deteriorate into a name calling/insult session imho....
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.
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.
