29 year old Father Claims To Have 21 Children

Page 3 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Molecular_Biologist
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 329
Location: My own world

06 Apr 2011, 10:31 pm

Quote:
i noticed you ignored the fact that you will probably benefit from this new kind of economy at some point in your life. perhaps you enjoy the benefits but want to turn the feminist clock back at the same time, but that would not work. thank goodness.



Nope, I am contemplating abandoning my career for an easier job.

Going Galt.

There is no sense working hard in this system for the benefit of others. I do have a internet business idea that I'm working on the side. If that takes off I am going to expatriate to a country with more sensible tax laws.

Either way I'll let you harpies work and pay to keep this system going.



Molecular_Biologist
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 329
Location: My own world

06 Apr 2011, 10:41 pm

sunshower wrote:
Furthermore, partially in response to the "Idiocracy" argument, this "intelligent" vs. "dumb" argument is quickly turning into the 21st century version of white supremacy in my opinion.


You racist!



sunshower
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Age: 120
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,985

06 Apr 2011, 11:06 pm

Molecular_Biologist wrote:
sunshower wrote:
Furthermore, partially in response to the "Idiocracy" argument, this "intelligent" vs. "dumb" argument is quickly turning into the 21st century version of white supremacy in my opinion.


You racist!


Was that sarcasm? :hmph: I don't get how that statement was racist...


_________________
Into the dark...


DeathGoth
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 57

07 Apr 2011, 12:46 am

russian wrote:
hale_bopp wrote:
That isn't an alpha male, its a douche fake alpha male.

I'd call him a dead beat loser and I would rather eat a turd than date him.


But 11 women would disagree with you. So your taste is suspect.


Or maybe these 11 women had no brain cells or had low self esteem so they would sleep with anything that walked..

It can be played both ways. Hale_Bopp seems like a smart person so I would think these 11 females are more suspect than she..



Weiss_Yohji
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 258
Location: Delaware

07 Apr 2011, 1:12 am

Molecular_Biologist wrote:
Chronos wrote:

So if you want to rant about all of the reasons you think you should be entitled to sex or a relationship over this guy, you should move this thread to the Haven,


Look I'm trying to tell you why women letting this guy breed at the expense of other more worthy males will cause societal collapse.

If you think you had things bad under a Judeo-Christian patriarchy, just you wait until you are living under sharia law.


It's especially strange considering that their ancestors were writing books while mine were backward, illiterate farmers and hunter-gatherers in Europe and North America.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

07 Apr 2011, 1:27 am

Molecular_Biologist wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Well, from an evolutionary point of view, he IS an alpha male.


Exactly.

This civilization has unwittingly decided that the ability to charm your way into a woman's pants is the most desirable genetic characteristic to be passed on to the next generation.


But you're making it sound like this is something that's only started to happen recently ... which is not the case. This has always been happening throughout the history of mankind. If you couldn't charm your way into a woman's pants, you couldn't have children.

That man may be considered a loser in your standards but he is sexually a hero in the eyes of those women who got to be f*cked by him ... and that's why they agreed to having sex with him in the first place!

It doesn't matter what your modern standards are. A lot of "Don Juans" will always be considered douchebags in the eyes of society even while they successfully insert their penises into every p**** they come into contact with. This was like that in the past and will continue to be the way it has always been ... just in different manifestations and under different man-made rules and regulations.

Welcome to the world of real evolutionary theories (instead of feminized evolutionary ideas).



Molecular_Biologist
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 329
Location: My own world

07 Apr 2011, 2:54 am

MCalavera wrote:
Molecular_Biologist wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Well, from an evolutionary point of view, he IS an alpha male.


Exactly.

This civilization has unwittingly decided that the ability to charm your way into a woman's pants is the most desirable genetic characteristic to be passed on to the next generation.


But you're making it sound like this is something that's only started to happen recently ... which is not the case. This has always been happening throughout the history of mankind. If you couldn't charm your way into a woman's pants, you couldn't have children.

That man may be considered a loser in your standards but he is sexually a hero in the eyes of those women who got to be f*cked by him ... and that's why they agreed to having sex with him in the first place!

It doesn't matter what your modern standards are. A lot of "Don Juans" will always be considered douchebags in the eyes of society even while they successfully insert their penises into every p**** they come into contact with. This was like that in the past and will continue to be the way it has always been ... just in different manifestations and under different man-made rules and regulations.

Welcome to the world of real evolutionary theories (instead of feminized evolutionary ideas).


Like I said, there were severe negative consequences for the women who mated with them (poverty). The rest of society wasn't forced to subsidize that kind of behavior.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,632
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

07 Apr 2011, 3:24 am

You are making it sound as if there's a great portion of guys are dying single and dateless because of this, that's not true. Look around you, ,more than 90% of guys are having girlfriends ,partners or wives during their lifetime.


The problem is in us, and not because some guys are mating with 10 and so of girls.



Molecular_Biologist
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 329
Location: My own world

07 Apr 2011, 7:42 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
You are making it sound as if there's a great portion of guys are dying single and dateless because of this, that's not true. Look around you, ,more than 90% of guys are having girlfriends ,partners or wives during their lifetime.


The problem is in us, and not because some guys are mating with 10 and so of girls.



You are completely wrong,

The percentage of people who get married has been dropping for decades throughout the western world, while the percentage of people living alone has gone up dramatically.

This is in addition to the very high levels of divorce.

The reasons are complex, but sexual immorality and the destruction of the family caused by the welfare state are often sited as a major cause.

I am arguing that socially awkward males are baring the brunt of this trend as more and more females become single parents dependent on the government following their flings with the "bad boys".

There is no reason why men who cannot find wives in this disgusting society should be forced to pay taxes for the irresponsibility and recklessness of the matriarchy.

The man in the article is the worst kind of parasite possible. Most parasites simply weaken the host by diverting a small percentage of nutrients from the body for its own purpose.

This man on the other hand, has terminated the genetic lines of multiple men and simultaneously forced those men to surrender part of their labor for the upbringing of his progeny.

Violent revolutions and wars have been fought over less injustices.

In nature animals will instinctually destroy threats to their germline like this man represents.

If this $#$t keeps up, we will get the law of the jungle and no amount of shouting about "women's rights" is going to prevent the inevitable.

If women want their freedom to F$ck men like this they are going to have to do it on their own dime.

The moment you reach into my pocket to pay for your choices is the moment you surrender your freedom to make those choices.



deadeyexx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 758

07 Apr 2011, 8:24 am

Molecular_Biologist wrote:
Like I said, there were severe negative consequences for the women who mated with them (poverty). The rest of society wasn't forced to subsidize that kind of behavior.


Actually, it did. Guys like this are nothing new. Society would absorb the children and the woman would lie about being raped or that another man was the father. There was not a way to prove otherwise.

Be thankful for DNA tests and child support laws. Now accusations can be proven and the guy recklessly spreading his seed will be hounded for the rest of his life.



russian
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 106

07 Apr 2011, 8:25 am

-I disagree. Since so many women think he is a 'good provider' and you are single and reproductive he is 'better than you.' Humans have always reproduced in a society. Your job is to pay for HIS KIDS. Being a 'good' provider is not related anymore. I agree.
-Morally this is QUITE offensive. But since destroying and rebuilding society on your terms is both impossible and dangerous, as well as having a 0% chance of success, I don't see what your answer is.
-I'd recommend either a wife from a 3rd world country, or madness.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

07 Apr 2011, 8:46 am

in pre-contact inuit/eskimo society, there were sometimes men who would play sick and stay home from hunting and fishing. while at home, they would seduce women of the village. these men would procreate copiously and other men would have to raise their children (if unaware of the parentage).

there is nothing new about this situation.

such players would be lured out onto the ice and pushed into the water, but anyways. not the point. the point is that the problem is not caused by feminism or the welfare state (the inuit were about the furthest froma welfare state that you could imagine). the problem is caused by the dark underbelly of human nature, and the personal choices that result from that.



RossMc
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 3 Oct 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 147

07 Apr 2011, 9:42 am

A few people have made a link to the welfare state and the epidemic of irresponsible men fathering children that they then abandoned. If you look at society pre-welfare state, say for example, at the England of 1900 roughly, there were still a lot of charming players that charmed the pants off of girls, but the incentives were different. For a young girl of a working-class background, marriage was often the only way ahead. A high percentage worked at low-paying factory or retail jobs where an unwed pregnancy would cause them to lose their jobs. A high percentage worked as domestic servants, and the same dynamics worked there. A surprisingly high percentage were prostitutes. In such a poor society, a little money could buy a lot of sex, so the mistress on the side was a common acquisition for an affluent man. In that society before computers, picture IDs, and DNA tests, it was much easier for a man to abandon his children and re-surface somewhere else with a new identity.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

07 Apr 2011, 6:16 pm

deadeyexx wrote:
Be thankful for DNA tests and child support laws. Now accusations can be proven and the guy recklessly spreading his seed will be hounded for the rest of his life.


Eh, some states presume the husband is the father regardless of genetic ties, other states assume the father listed on the birth is the father and if he doesn't go to court to prove otherwise within a certain time period he is liable for CS regardless of genetic ties.

In these cases the genetic father isn't always liable for child support. This claim of your's isn't universal, I don't even know if it's safe to say it exists at all.



deadeyexx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 758

08 Apr 2011, 8:27 am

ikorack wrote:
deadeyexx wrote:
Be thankful for DNA tests and child support laws. Now accusations can be proven and the guy recklessly spreading his seed will be hounded for the rest of his life.


Eh, some states presume the husband is the father regardless of genetic ties, other states assume the father listed on the birth is the father and if he doesn't go to court to prove otherwise within a certain time period he is liable for CS regardless of genetic ties.

In these cases the genetic father isn't always liable for child support. This claim of your's isn't universal, I don't even know if it's safe to say it exists at all.


You're right actually. Like any government agency, the child support office is more concerned with money than justice. As long as they have a man who can be legally forced to pay child support, they don't care if he's the one who deserves to.

I knew a woman who was seperated from her husband and got pregnant by another man. Under Ohio law, the husband's name would be automatically put on the birth certificate. In addition, it wasn't legal to get a divorice during the pregnancy. In addition to that, even if the husband proved the baby wasn't his, it would be a legal nightmare to get his name removed from the birth certificate without without another man's name replacing it. Such a costly nightmare that paying the support wouldn't seem so bad. In this case, the biological father could walk free.

However, if there is no father's name on the birth certificate, the government will work hard to change that. I'll bet most of these 11 women wern't married if he was PROVEN to have 21 kids.



wefunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,486

08 Apr 2011, 10:06 am

deadeyexx wrote:
ikorack wrote:
deadeyexx wrote:
Be thankful for DNA tests and child support laws. Now accusations can be proven and the guy recklessly spreading his seed will be hounded for the rest of his life.


Eh, some states presume the husband is the father regardless of genetic ties, other states assume the father listed on the birth is the father and if he doesn't go to court to prove otherwise within a certain time period he is liable for CS regardless of genetic ties.

In these cases the genetic father isn't always liable for child support. This claim of your's isn't universal, I don't even know if it's safe to say it exists at all.


You're right actually. Like any government agency, the child support office is more concerned with money than justice. As long as they have a man who can be legally forced to pay child support, they don't care if he's the one who deserves to.

I knew a woman who was seperated from her husband and got pregnant by another man. Under Ohio law, the husband's name would be automatically put on the birth certificate. In addition, it wasn't legal to get a divorice during the pregnancy. In addition to that, even if the husband proved the baby wasn't his, it would be a legal nightmare to get his name removed from the birth certificate without without another man's name replacing it. Such a costly nightmare that paying the support wouldn't seem so bad. In this case, the biological father could walk free.

However, if there is no father's name on the birth certificate, the government will work hard to change that. I'll bet most of these 11 women wern't married if he was PROVEN to have 21 kids.


The laws do vary from place to place. Generally speaking, the husband of the mother is established as the legal father without any need for paternity testing unless the mother specifically instructs the hospital to exclude her husband from the paperwork. When a mother is unmarried, the man claiming to be the father can sign the paternity paperwork in the hospital to place himself on the birth certificate without paternity testing.

Outside the hospital, there will be need to establish paternity, which requires a petition and all associated filing costs. The mother can dispute the petition of the father to register his paternity of the child, but then a paternity test (dna) will be ordered. Likewise, a father can also dispute a petition to establish paternity and it will be resolved with an order for a paternity test. Both parents can agree on paternity without the need for a medical test. As you can see, it is very easy for a man to be the legal father of a child without being the biological father. I suppose this is why Maury Povich has so many shows on the topic.

Many US States do have Child Support Enforcement offices. These offices and the child support laws vary considerably from state to state. I am very frustrated by how Illinois handles my ex-husband but since I live in Florida, there is little that I can do without hiring an Illinois attorney and, honestly, spending more money than what my ex owes in support. Irony. Florida really attacks non-custodial parents for child support arrears. In fact, Florida is one of five states that can and will imprison a NCP for child support non-payment without allowing that individual an attorney before being held in custody.* Depending on what state your child support case is in, the laws that govern you could fluctuate significantly. In many states, the CSE does also provide Paternity Establishment and NCP Location services, as well as establishing and/or enforcing child support orders.

Of course, states also vary wildly in regard to visitation. In most states, Visitation Orders are regarded as civil orders that, while serious, shouldn't consider jail time unless an actual crime in committed (eg. kidnapping, etc.) while the visitation order is being violated. The worst that happens to a parent who violates a Visitation Order is typically a Residential Parent or Custodial Parent switch. A child has what's called a Bill of Rights, which entitles them to live with a certain degree with security and peace, demanding that both parents behave in a mature and cooperative way. When the court has sufficient proof that one parent is violating court orders and denying the child their Bill of Rights, it may be ordered to switch custody to the parent who is cooperative. There are states who do have laws establishing a willful refusal to provide visitation as a crime. In these states, the uncooperative parent can be arrested and imprisoned for the same offense. In fact, in Illinois, two teenage daughters were imprisoned for refusing to see their father. Oddly, there has not been a case on the books anywhere in Illinois for a non-custodial father to be imprisoned for not meeting his visitation obligations. I tell my exes that visitation isn't about the adults, it is the time the children are entitled to receive from their parents and what's written in the order is the base minimum obligation.

I brought up visitation because it's important to mention in the flurry of flabbergast over this unverifiable man in his unverifiable situation, that there is more to consider than what he pays in child support. Typical inclusions beyond basic child support and visitation also include life insurance, health insurance, uncovered medical costs, extra-curricular activities, school activities, and college tuition with living expenses.

Mind you, I think that the article the OP linked to is bullshit, the conclusions the OP made based on the article are bullshit and much of the crap people have said in comments about parents who have lots of kids is bullshit. It sounds like more Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story. But what do I know? I have 4 kids with 3 baby daddies. I could explain how I got there but, honestly, any one who feels entitled to an explanation for my life really does not deserve one. I can tell you that what I've said here has little to do with my personal experience, other than where I have divulged the information, and relies more on my education and professional experience. So take it for what it's worth, which has been between $12/hr and $40K/yr throughout the years.


* It is typical that when an individual who receives child support registers to receive Cash Assistance from the State, the State will hold the child support money. This is a bizarre compensation but this is part of receiving Cash Assistance that has remained unquestioned for decades. In Florida and four other states (I'll have to look up which ones and I'm being lazy right now) if a mother receives Cash Assistance and, as a result, surrenders for child support for the time she receives that assistance, the father will be taken into custody for any child support arrears he may have. This will happen every single month until he is current on the support, regardless of any existing agreement to pay back arrears in increments. Unless he hires an attorney to do quick footwork in between incidents to stop him from being arrested, it will happen every time the mother receives her monthly Cash Assistance.